SOCIETT  OF  INQUIRir; 

^^^tnce^O'?^  S^'dea/,  ^eintnazy  . 


# 


LIBRARY 

Theological  Seminary, 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

Cane, . 

TX  i963 

Shelf, 

L15 

Rook, 

■ ♦ 


"t' 


A 


« 


» 


IT- 


% 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/essayoncongressoOOIadd 


AN 


ESSAY 

ON  A 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS, 


FOR  THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  INTERNATIONAL  DISPUTES  WITHOUT 
RESORT  TO  ARMS. 


CONTAINING  THE  SUBSTANCE  OF 


THE  REJECTED  ESSAYS  ON  THAT  SUBJECT. 


WITH 


ORIGINAL  THOUGHTS  AND  A COPIOUS  APPENDIX. 


/ 

BY  WILLIAM  LADD. 


BOSTON: 

WHIPPLE  AND  DAMRELL,  9 CORNHILL. 

1840. 


WILLIAM  S.  DAMRELL,  PRINTER. 

No.  9 Cornhill,  Boston. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


As  this  Essay  is  expected  to  go  out  to  the  world  as  a 
separate  pamphlet,  or  volume,  as  well  as  to  be  bound  up 
with  the  Prize  Essays  on  a Congress  of  Nations,  published 
by  the  American  Peace  Society,  it  is  necessary  to  notify 
those  to  whom  it  may  come  separate  of  this  circumstance. 
Thirty-five  of  the  dissertations,  out  of  a greater  number  — I 
believe  about  forty — which  were  handed  in  for  the  purpose 
of  claiming  the  reward  offered  by  two  gentlemen  of  New 
York,  through  the  American  Peace  Society,  have  been 
read  by  me.  Others  have  been  withdrawn,  some  of  which 
have  been  published  by  the  authors  of  them.  The  Society 
concluded  to  accept  the  advice  of  the  first  committee  of 
award,  — the  Hon.  Messrs.  Story,  Wirt  and  Calhoun, — 
to  publish  the  five  best  Essays ; as  the  second  committee, 
consisting  of  Ex-president  Adams,  Chancellor  Kent  and 
the  Hon.  Daniel  Webster,  did  not  agree  on  the  successful 
competitor.  The  Peace  Society  appointed  a committee  of 
their  own  body  to  select  five  of  the  best  dissertations  for 
publication,  having  an  eye  to  the  awards  of  the  above- 
named  committees,  and  directed  me  to  add  a sixth,  taking 
all  the  matter  from  the  rejected  Essays  worth  preserving, 
which  is  not  contained  in  the  Essays  selected  for  publica- 
tion. I have  attended  to  this  duty.  In  reading  over 
these  Essays,  I noted  down  every  thought  worth  preserv- 
ing; and  I present  them  here  in  a body,  with  such 
reflections,  additions  and  historical  facts  as  occurred  to 
me  during  my  labor ; so  that  my  claim  to  originality,  in 
this  production,  rests  much  on  the  thought  of  separating 


IV 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


the  subject  into  two  distinct  parts,  viz.,  1st.  A congress  of 
ambassadors  from  all  those  Christian  and  civilized  nations 
who  should  choose  to  send  them,  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
the  principles  of  international  law  by  compact  and  agree- 
ment, of  the  nature  of  a mutual  treaty,  and  also  of  devising 
and  promoting  plans  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  and 
meliorating  the  condition  of  man.  2d.  A court  of  nations, 
composed  of  the  most  able  civilians  in  the  world,  to 
arbitrate  or  judge  such  cases  as  should  be  brought  before 
it,  by  the  mutual  consent  of  two  or  more  contending 
nations : thus  dividing  entirely  the  diplomatic  from  the 
judicial  functions,  which  require  such  different,  not  to  say 
opposite,  characters  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions.  I 
consider  the  Congress  as  the  legislature,  and  the  Court  as 
the  judiciary,  in  the  government  of  nations,  leaving  the 
functions  of  the  executive  with  public  opinion,  “the  queen 
of  the  world.”  This  division  I have  never  seen  in  any 
essay  or  plan  for  a congress  or  diet  of  independent  nations, 
either  ancient  or  modern ; and  I believe  it  will  obviate  all 
the  objections  which  have  been  heretofore  made  to  such  a 
plan. 

I advise  all  persons,  into  whose  hand  this  Essay  may 
fall,  to  purchase  the  volume  of  Prize  Essays,  published  by 
the  American  Peace  Society,  for  they  will  find  them,  in 
many  respects,  very  far  superior  to  this  in  style  and  rich- 
ness of  matter,  both  historical  and  original ; and  they  will 
also  assist  the  Society,  now  burthened  with  debt,  which 
will  be  increased  by  the  publication  of  these  Essays,  unless 
they  meet  with  a ready  sale. 

William  Ladd. 

Boston,  February,  1840. 


ESSAY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION  AND  GENERAL  REMARKS. 

1.  Self-love — 2.  Man  a social  being — 3.  Man  as  a rational  being  seeks 
alliance  of  others — 4.  Of  Conquest — 5.  Of  voluntary  government — 
6.  Safety  the  chief  object  of  government — 7.  Nations  moral  persons 
— 8.  International  Law  necessary  for  their  government — 9.  Difficul- 
ties anticipated — 10.  Extent  of  the  organization — 11.  Want  of  power 
to  enforce  decrees. 

1.  Self-love  is  a passion  universally  predominant 
in  the  animal,  man.  It  was  born  with  him,  is  inherent 
in  his  nature,  and  is  the  mainspring  of  all  his  actions, 
while  he  continues  in  his  natural  state.  In  this  state, 
man  seeks  the  gratification  of  his  animal  passions, 
without  regard  to  the  welfare  of  others.  As  this  is 
the  case  with  every  man  in  a state  of  nature,  it  fol- 
lows, that  every  man  is  liable  to  come  into  conflict 
with  every  other  man  in  his  immediate  neighborhood, 
and  to  resort  to  violence  to  gratify  his  lusts  and 
passions.  Hence,  as  was  observed  by  Hobbes,  “the 


65 


514 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


6 


natural  state  of  man  is  war,”  in  which  the  strong  and 
the  cunning  will  always  obtain  the  mastery  over  the 
weak  and  unsuspecting;  and  will  rob,  murder,  and 
enslave  them,  whenever  they  think  it  expedient. 

2.  But  man  is  a social  being,  and  he  feels  it  not 
good  for  him  to  be  alone ; and  he  chooses  to  himself 
a partner  of  his  joys  and  sorrows,  whom,  by  force, 
fraud,  or  persuasion,  he  obtains.  A family  of  children 
is  the  consequence.  The  parents  are  bound  to  one 
another,  and  to  their  children,  by  a softer,  but  as 
strong,  a tie  as  self-love — or  rather  it  is  self-love 
extended  to  their  partner  and  to  their  children. 
Hence  come  families,  the  germs  of  nations,  bound 
together  by  affection  to  their  clan,  and  governed  by 
patriarchal  authority,  until  they  find  it  convenient  or 
necessary  to  part,  and  each  individual  becomes  the 
germ  of  a new  family,  tribe,  or  nation. 

3.  But  man  is  also  a rational  animal,  and  he  soon 
perceives  that  there  are  enjoyments  which  can  more 
easily  be  procured  by  persuasion,  than  by  force ; and 
that  though  he  may  be  stronger  than  another  individ- 
ual, two  other  individuals  may  be  stronger  than  he  — 
that  he  cannot  always  be  on  the  watch  to  preserve 
the  property  he  has  acquired  by  robbery,  the  chase, 
or  agriculture  — and  that  he  also  is  subject  to  incon- 
venience from  the  theft,  or  violence,  of  others ; hence 
he  soon  finds  himself  compelled  to  make  a certain 
convention,  or  agreement,  with  others,  both  inferiors 
and  equals,  both  as  an  individual  and  as  the  head  of 
a tribe.  These  compacts  are  guaranteed  by  religion, 
public  opinion,  and  certain  undefined  laws  of  honor 


7 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


515 


dependent  on  them ; but  most  of  all  by  a general 
perception  of  the  truth,  that  the  happiness  of  the 
whole  is  best  promoted  by  the  subservience  of  the 
interests  of  the  few  to  the  interests  of  the  many. 

4.  It  would  be  pleasing  to  the  philanthropist,  if  he 
could  conceive  that  the  ways  abovementioned  were 
the  only  ones  in  which  states  have  been  formed ; but, 
unhappily,  it  is  not  so.  From  the  first  ages,  Nimrods, 
mighty  men  of  war,  by  force  or  fraud,  have  enslaved 
other  men,  held  them  in  bondage  and  vassalage,  and 
been  obliged  to  make  laws  for  them,  which  have  con- 
tinued, with  more  or  less  severity,  until  those  slaves 
and  vassals  have  become  more  enlightened,  and  taken 
a part,  or  the  whole,  of  the  government  into  their  own 
hands. 

5.  In  some  few  cases,  the  people,  feeling  their 
incompetency  to  govern  themselves,  have  been  willing 
to  continue  under  the  paternal  government  of  the 
elder  branch  of  the  family,  and  hereditary  monarchy, 
at  times  accompanied  with  a change  in  the  reigning 
family,  has  followed.  Under  these  various  forms  of 
government,  man  has  been  infinitely  happier,  than  he 
wojLild  have  been  in  a state  of  nature  and  anarchy ; 
and  generally  nations  have,  naturally  and  without 
consultation,  taken  that  form  of  government  best 
adapted  to  the  people.  For  many  nations,  absolute 
monarchy  is  best,  for  some  a limited  monarchy,  for  a 
few  a republican  form,  and  for  a few  very  small  states, 
even  a pure  democracy  is  perhaps  the  best ; but  the 
different  features  of  all  these  forms  of  government 
are  variously  combined  in  infinite  diversity,  according 
to  the  genius  of  the  people  governed. 


516 


COJfGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


8 


6.  The  chief  end  and  purpose  of  government  is,  to 
prevent  one  person  from  injuring  another ; so  that 
every  one  may  sit  under  his  own  vine  and  fig-tree, 
with  none  to  molest  or  make  him  afraid.  This  is  the 
object  of  all  our  laws,  and  all  the  expensive  machinery 
of  government,  which  has  taken  care  that  no  individ- 
ual should  molest  his  neighbor ; and  when  disputes 
arise,  so  far  from  leaving  each  individual  to  take  his 
cause  into  his  own  hands,  governments  have  provided 
courts  of  law  to  decide  the  controversy.  In  many 
governments,  the  legislative  has  been  entirely  sep- 
arated from  the  judicial  power,  and  the  executive 
from  both.  In  all  of  them,  the  impartiality  of  the 
judicial  power  has  been  in  a ratio  equal  to  the  knowl- 
edge and  virtue  of  the  people.  In  some  of  these 
governments,  laws  have  been  made,  not  only  for 
securing  the  rights  of  private  individuals,  but  also  of 
bodies  corporate,  and  even  of  component  parts  of  the 
empire  which  are  for  many  purposes  independent. 
No  such  thing  has  yet  been  done  with  respect  to 
nations,  though  courts  have  been  instituted,  to  decide 
controversies  which  have  arisen  between  two  or  more 
members  of  the  same  confederacy  of  nations.  Our 
object  is  to  go  one  step  further,  and  appoint  a court, 
by  which  contests  between  nations  shall  be  settled, 
without  resort  to  arms,  when  any  such  controversy 
shall  be  brought,  by  mutual  consent,  before  it. 

7.  By  consent  of  all  writers  on  international  law, 
nations  are  considered  as  individual,  moral  persons, 
perfectly  equal  and  independent  of  one  another. 
Therefore,  the  same  moral  laws  which  ought  to  govern 


9 CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  517 

individuals,  ought  to  govern  nations.  What  is  wrong 
for  an  individual,  is  wrong  for  a nation.  In  the 
intercourse  of  these  moral  persons,  disputes  will  arise, 
injuries  will  be  done,  retaliation  and  revenge  will 
follow,  and,  unless  some  means  of  terminating  their 
disputes  by  amicable  and  rational  methods  are  devised, 
war  will  be  the  consequence.  There  are  three  ways 
already  in  use,  whereby  war  may  be  avoided.  The 
first  is,  by  cultivating  a spirit  of  peace,  which  is  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  is  as  much  the  duty  of  nations 
as  it  is  of  individuals;  by  this  means,  injuries, 
especially  if  not  very  grievous,  will  be  overlooked,  or 
be  passed  by  with  a bare  remonstrance,  and  an 
appeal  to  the  moral  sense  of  the  nation  that  has 
inflicted  the  injury.  The  second  is,  by  negotiation, 
where  the  subject  in  dispute  is  formally  discussed 
and  settled  by  reparation  or  compromise.  If  this 
cannot  be  done,  the  next  step  is  mediation  of  a friendly 
power,  accompanied  with  arbitration  and  the  accep- 
tance of  the  award.  The  last  resort  is  war,  which 
commonly  increases,  instead  of  remedying  the  evil. 
We  propose  a plan  more  likely  to  procure  justice  than 
either  of  these. 

8.  As  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  neces- 
sary for  the  safety,  happiness  and  improvement  of  the 
human  race,  and  as  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
peace  of  society,  that  when  the  selfish  passions  of 
man  come  in  conflict,  the  judgment  of  the  case  should 
not  be  left  with  the  individuals  concerned,  but  with 
some  impartial  tribunal ; so  it  is  equally  necessary,  for 
the  peace  and  happiness  of  mankind,  that  when  the 


518 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


10 


selfish  passions  of  nations  come  in  conflict,  the  decis- 
ion of  the  case  should  not  be  left  with  an  individual 
nation  concerned,  but  should  be  referred  to  some 
great  tribunal,  that  should  give  a verdict  on  the  affairs 
of  nations,  in  the  same  manner  that  a civil  court  de- 
cides the  disputes  of  individuals.  If  it  was  desirable 
for  individuals,  bodies  politic,  and  small  independent 
tribes,  to  unite  in  some  general  system  of  jurispru- 
dence, why  is  it  not  equally  desirable  for  large  tribes 
and  nations  to  do  the  same  1 

9.  There  are  two  difficulties  in  the  way,  which 
require  our  attention ; but  it  will  be  found  that  they 
may  as  easily  be  removed  as  were  the  difficulties 
attending  the  commencement  and  advancement  of 
institutions  for  the  adjudication  of  difficulties  arising 
between  individuals.  The  first  of  these  is  the  want 
of  a body  of  men  to  enact  and  promulgate  laws  for 
the  government  of  nations  ; the  other  is  the  want  of  a 
physical  force  to  carry  the  decisions  of  a court  of 
nations  into  execution. 

10.  As  to  the  first  difficulty,  the  formation  of  what 
we  call  a Congress  of  Nations  is  no  greater  than 
the  assembling  of  any  convention  for  the  enactment 
of  laws,  by  mutual  consent,  for  the  government  of  the 
parties  represented.  It  is  not  expected,  that  such  a 
combination  of  powers  would  be  of  a very  great 
geographical  extent,  as  it  could  only  embrace  the 
most  civilized,  enlightened,  and  Christian  nations  that 
could  be  represented  at  one  great  diet,  by  their 
ambassadors  ; and  there  form  a league  and  covenant, 
each  with  every  one,  and  every  one  with  each,  that 


11 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


519 


they  would,  in  their  future  intercourse,  be  governed 
by  the  laws  enacted  by  the  diet  or  congress  and 
ratified  by  the  governments  of  all  the  powers  so 
represented.  The  world  has  now  a kind  of  code  of 
voluntary  international  law,  laid  down  by  eminent 
civilians,  which  is,  for  the  most  part,  respected,  but 
which  is  not  confirmed,  by  any  compact  or  agreement, 
and  on  which  the  authors  themselves  often  differ,  so 
that  what  is  now  called  the  law  of  nations,  is  but  little 
better  than  a nose  of  wax,  which  may  be  twisted 
either  way,  to  suit  the  purposes  of  dominant  nations. 

11.  The  magnitude  of  the  second  difficulty  is 
apparently  greater,  but  it  will  be  much  reduced  by 
reflection.  It  is  true,  it  would  not  comport  with  the 
peace  and  happiness  of  mankind,  to  invest  rulers  with 
the  power  to  compel  an  acquiescence  in  the  decisions 
of  a Court  of  Nations  by  arms;  but  if  we  look 
into  the  condition  of  man  in  a state  of  civilization,  it 
will  be  found,  that  where  one  man  obeys  the  laws  for 
fear  of  the  sword  of  the  magistrate,  an  hundred  obey 
them  through  fear  of  public  opinion.  But  I would 
further  observe,  1st,  that  public  opinion  has  not  yet 
been  made  to  bear  on  nations,  and  little  or  no  means 
have  hitherto  been  used  to  make  it  bear  on  them. 
The  plan  we  propose  is  one  of  the  means  eminently 
adapted  to  make  it  bear  on  them,  as  will  be  shown 
in  the  sequel.  2.  We  do  not  know  what  means  the 
congregated  wisdom  of  Christendom  may  devise  for 
the  enforcement  of  the  decisions  of  a court  of  nations, 
by  so  regulating  the  intercourse  of  nations  that  a 
refractory  member  might  be  made  to  feel  that  its  duty 


520 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


12 


is  its  true  interest.  3.  As  it  is  not  intended  that  this 
court  of  nations  shall  judge  any  cases  but  such  as 
are  submitted  to  it  by  the  mutual  consent  of  both 
parties  concerned,  its  decisions  will  have  as  much  to 
enforce  them  as  the  decisions  of  an  individual  um- 
pire, which  has  so  often  settled  disputes  between 
nations.  4.  Though  at  the  commencement  of  this 
system,  its  success  may  not  be  so  great  as  is  desira- 
ble, yet,  as  moral  power  is  every  day  increasing  in  a 
geometrical  ratio,  it  will  finally  take  the  place  of  all 
wars  between  civilized  and  Christian  nations,  much 
in  the  same  manner  as  a civil  court  has  taken  the 
place  of  the  judicial  combat.  With  these  preliminaries 
we  now  proceed  to  a more  minute  consideration  of  a 
Congress  and  a Court  of  Nations,  each  by  itself. 


13 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


521 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON  THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  PROPOSED  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  A Congress  of  Nations  a separate  tiling  from  a Court  of  Nations — 
2.  Organization  of  the  Congress — -3.  Formation  of  a Code  of  In- 
ternational Law — 4.  Progress  necessarily  slow — 5.  No  concern  with 
internal  affairs  of  Nations. 

1.  Our  plan  is  composed  of  two  parts,  viz.,  a Con- 
gress of  Nations  and  a Court  of  Nations,  either  of 
which  might  exist  without  the  other,  but  they  would 
tend  much  more  to  the  happiness  of  mankind  if  united 
in  one  plan,  though  not  in  one  body.  A congress  of 
ambassadors  from  all  those  Christian  and  civilized 
nations  who  should  choose  to  unite  in  the  measure, 
is  highly  desirable  to  fix  the  fluctuating  and  various 
points  of  international  law,  by  the  consent  of  all  the 
parties  represented,  making  the  law  of  nations  so 
plain  that  a court  composed  of  the  most  eminent 
jurists  of  the  countries  represented  at  the  Congress, 
could  easily  apply  those  principles  to  any  particular 
case  brought  before  them.  Such  a congress  would 
provide  for  the  organization  of  such  a court ; but 
they  would  not  constitute  that  court ; which  would 
be  permanent,  like  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  while  the  Congress  would  be  transient  or 
periodical,  with  a change  of  members  like  the  Congress 
or  Senate  of  the  United  States.  It  is  not  proposed 
that  the  legislative  and  judiciary  bodies  shall  be 
66 


522 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


14 


united.  The  Congress  of  Nations,  therefore,  is  one 
body,  and  the  creator  of  the  Court  of  Nations,  which 
is  another  distinct  body.  Any  nation  represented  at 
the  Congress  might  change  its  delegates  as  often  as 
it  pleased,  like  other  ambassadors,  but  the  members 
of  the  court  w^ould  hold  their  offices  during  good 
behaviour. 

2.  The  Congress  of  Nations  would  be  organized 
by  a convention,  composed  of  ambassadors  from  all 
those  Christian  or  civilized  nations  who  should  con- 
cur in  the  measure,  each  nation  having  one  vote, 
however  numerous  may  be  the  ambassadors  sent  to 
the  convention.  This  convention  would  organize 
themselves  into  a Congress  of  Nations,  by  adopting 
such  regulations  and  by-laws  as  might  appear  expe- 
dient to  the  majority.  Those  who  would  not  agree 
with  the  majority  would,  of  course,  have  leave  to 
withdraw  from  the  convention,  which  would  then 
constitute  the  Congress  of  Nations,  choose  its  presi- 
dent, vice-presidents,  secretaries,  clerks,  and  such  other 
officers  as  they  would  see  fit.  New  members  might 
be  received,  at  any  time  subsequent  to  the  first  organ- 
ization of  the  Congress,  by  their  embracing  the  rules 
already  adopted  and  the  nations  sending  them 
adopting  the  laws  of  nations  enacted  by  the  Congress, 
and  duly  ratified  before  their  becoming  members  of 
the  confedei’ation. 

3.  After  organization,  the  Congress  w'ould  proceed 
to  the  consideration  of  the  first  principles  of  the  law 
of  nations  as  they  are  laid  down  by  civilians  and 
agreed  to  by  treaties,  throwing  all  the  light  which  the 


15 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


523 


congregated  wisdom  of  the  civilized  world  contains 
on  the  principles  of  international  law,  and  applying 
those  principles  to  classes  of  individual  cases.  No 
principle  would  be  established,  unless  it  had  the 
unanimous  consent  of  all  the  nations  represented  at 
the  Congress,  and  ratified  by  all  the  governments  of 
those  nations,  so  that  each  and  every  principle  would 
resemble  a treaty,  by  which  each  nation  represented 
bound  itself  to  every  other  nation  represented,  to 
abide  by  certain  expressed  principles  in  their  future 
intercourse  with  one  another;  which  agreement  or 
treaty  shall  not  be  annulled,  except  by  the  consent  of 
all  the  parties  making  it. 

4.  That  the  progress  of  such  a Congress  would  be 
very  slow,  it  must  be  allowed ; but  so  far  from  being 
the  worse,  it  would  be  the  better  for  that,  and  more 
likely  to  produce  permanent  and  useful  results.  It 
would  not  be  necessary  that  each  article  of  the  com- 
pact, thus  entered  into,  should  be  ratified  by  the 
nations  concerned,  before  the  Congress  proceeded  to 
settle  other  points ; but  the  whole,  having  been 
agreed  on  in  Congress,  could  be  submitted  to  the 
governments  represented,  and  such  points  as  should 
be  unanimously  adopted  should  be  considered  as 
settled  points  of  international  law,  and  the  remainder 
left  open  for  further  investigation ; and  thus  all  the 
most  material  points  of  international  law  would  be 
for  ever  settled,  and  other  points  put  in  a fair  way  of 
being  settled.  The  Court  of  Nations  need  not  be 
delayed  until  all  the  points  of  international  law  were 
settled ; but  its  organization  might  be  one  of  the  first 


524 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


16 


things  for  the  Congress  of  Nations  to  do,  and  in  the 
mean  time,  the  Court  of  Nations  might  decide  cases 
brought  before  it  on  principles  generally  known  and 
acknowledged. 

5.  The  Congress  of  Nations  is  to  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  internal  affairs  of  nations,  or  with  insur- 
rections, revolutions,  or  contending  factions  of  people 
or  princes,  or  with  forms  of  government,  but  solely  to 
concern  themselves  with  the  intercourse  of  nations  in 
peace  and  war.  1st.  To  define  the  rights  of  belliger- 
ents towards  each  other ; and  endeavor,  as  much  as 
possible,  to  abate  the  horrors  of  war,  lessen  its  fre- 
quency, and  promote  its  termination.  2d.  To  settle 
the  rights  of  neutrals,  and  thus  abate  the  evils  which 
war  inflicts  on  those  nations  that  are  desirous  of 
remaining  in  peace.  3d.  To  agree  on  measures  of 
utility  to  mankind  in  a state  of  peace;  and  4th,  To 
organize  a Court  of  Nations.  These  are  the  four 
great  divisions  of  the  labors  of  the  proposed  Congress 
of  Nations. 


17 


COJfGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


525 


CHAPTER  III. 

ON  THE  RIGHTS  OF  BELLIGERENTS  WITH  RESPECT  TO  EACH  OTHER. 

1.  The  rights  of  belligerents  have  their  limits — 2.  The  right  to  declare 
war — 3.  Are  all  means  of  destroying  an  enemy  lawful  ? — 4.  Confis- 
cation of  private  debts — 5.  Detention  of  the  subjects  of  an  enemy — 
6.  Who  may  be  made  prisoners  of  war  ? — 7.  Property  liable  to  capture 
— 8.  Voyages  of  discovery — 9.  Compacts  with  an  enemy — 10.  Of 
Truce — 11.  Of  Retaliation. 

1.  The  rights  of  belligerents  have  their  limits,  even 
as  they  respect  one  another.  Humanity  has  been 
shocked  and  outraged  by  excesses  committed  by 
them ; and  there  is  no  good  reason  why  nations 
should  not  mutually  agree  to  frown  on  all  the  cruelties 
of  war  which  are  unnecessary  to  the  ostensible  object 
of  it.  A nation,  by  declaring  war,  makes  every  sub- 
ject of  the  country  against  whom  war  is  declared, 
technically  speaking,  an  enemy — hostis,  a national 
enemy,  not  inimicus,  or  a personal  enemy.  It  would 
be  hard  to  show  that  the  gospel  has  made  any  differ- 
ence ; but  man  has ; and  a person  may  be  an  enemy, 
according  to  the  law  of  nations,  who  is  a friend  and 
brother,  according  to  the  law  of  God.  If  nations  will 
continue  to  make  war,  they  should  endeavor  to  violate 
the  law  of  God  as  little  as  possible,  and  put  all  prac- 
ticable bounds  to  savage  exhibitions  of  national 
enmity.  The  rights  of  belligerents  over  their  enemies 
ought  to  be  regulated  by  acknowledged  principles ; 


526 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


17 


and  the  condition  of  prisoners  of  war  and  of  the 
vanquished  should  be,  as  much  as  possible,  amelio- 
rated. Vattel  holds  that  prisoners  of  war  may  be 
made  slaves,  when  we  may  lawfully  kill  them.*  Bur- 
lamaqui  thinks  we  may  kill  them  in  “cases  of  neces- 
sity.”! Formerly  prisoners  of  war  were  enslaved  or 
put  to  death  without  disgrace,  and  until  a very  late  date, 
viz.,  the  wars  between  Charles  XII  of  Sweden,  and 
Peter  the  great,  of  Russia,  prisoners  were  made  slaves 
during  the  war ; but  the  increased  light  of  Christianity 
leaves  but  little  to  be  done  on  this  subject. 

2.  The  question  should  be  settled  by  the  Congress, 
Whether  a nation,  unless  attacked,  has  a right  to 
declare  war  against  another  nation,  or  make  reprisals, 
until  it  has  resorted  to  all  other  means  of  obtaining 
justice,  such  as  negotiation,  and  an  offer  to  leave  the 
dispute  to  arbitration,  or  to  cast  lots,  or  settle  the 
dispute  by  the  ordeal  of  battle  by  two  or  more  cham- 
pions 1 The  last  two  modes  of  settling  international 
difficulties  are  not  seriously  proposed  in  this  age  of 
light  and  good  feeling,  but  only  to  show,  that,  however 
absurd  they  are  in  themselves,  they  are  altogether 
better  for  both  the  parties  concerned,  and  for  the 
world  at  large,  than  the  greater  absurdity  of  war,  and 
just  as  likely  to  do  justice  to  the  parties,  at  a much 
less  expense  of  life  and  money.  Many  other  ques- 
tions should  be  solved  by  the  Congress,  such  as  the 
following ; 


* See  his  Law  of  Nations,  lib.  iii,  § 152. 
t Burlamaqui,  part  3,  c.  v,  § 8. 


18 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


527 


3.  Are  all  means  of  destroying  an  enemy  lawful  1 
Is  it  lawful  to  poison  an  enemy’s  food,  or  his  springs 
and  wells  of  water, — to  use  poisoned  arms,  to  fire  at 
him  such  missiles  as  broken  glass  bottles  and  rusty 
nails,  which  inflict  almost  incurable  wounds,  without 
killing, — to  make  use  of  torpedoes,  fireships,  mines, 
&,c.  Is  assassination  to  be  allowed  ; and  under  what 
circumstances?  Burlamaqui  allows  of  assassination 
of  an  enemy  under  certain  circumstances.*  He 
reasons  correctly  and  ingeniously,  when  he  says,  “If 
we  may  employ  a great  number  of  men  to  kill  an 
enemy,  we  may  certainly  employ  a less  number,” 
though  he  doubts  whether  we  may  employ  one  of  the 
enemy’s  subjects  to  do  it  by  falsehood  and  treason. 
But  what  is  employing  deserters,  but  hiring  men  to 
kill  their  compatriots ; and  what  are  falsehood  and 
treason,  but  stratagems  of  war?  It  is  not  morally 
worse  to  cut  off  an  enemy  by  assassination,  than  by 
ambuscade,  torpedo,  or  mine,  and  if  I may  do  it  by 
hiring  traitors  and  deserters  in  masses,  why  may  I not 
do  it  by  a single  traitor  or  deserter?  How  many 
allow  of  employing  deserters  or  traitors  in  masses, 
who  would  shudder  at  the  thought  of  employing  a 
single  deserter  to  do  similar  things ! By  beginning  to 
prohibit  the  employing  of  single  deserters  or  traitors, 
Christian  nations  may,  at  length,  come  to  prohibit  the 
employment  of  deserters  and  traitors  in  masses. 

4.  Has  a nation,  by  declaring  war,  a right  to  con- 
fiscate private  debts  due  from  the  enemy  to  its  own 


Burlamaqui,  part  4,  c.  vi,  § 15. 


528 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


20 


subjects  1 During  the  war  of  the  American  revolu- 
tion, the  Americans  confiscated  the  private  debts  due 
from  American  to  British  subjects ; and  as  a bribe  to 
betray  the  debts,  a part  of  the  spoils  was  offered  to 
the  debtors.  This  principle  was  afterward  abandoned, 
and  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  indemnity  to  the  British 
merchants  was  promised.  Vattel  thinks  that  a bellig- 
erent has  a right  to  confiscate  such  debts,  or  at  least 
to  detain  the  payment  during  the  war.*  A Congress 
of  Nations  should  settle  this  question. 

5.  Has  a nation  a right,  on  going  to  war,  to  detain 
the  subjects  of  an  enemy,  either  civil  or  military,  who 
may  happen  to  be  in  its  territory ; and  to  what  extent 
shall  that  right  be  exercised?  — on  the  military  only, 
or  on  civilians  also?  — on  men  only,  or  on  women  and 
children  also,  and  on  property  ? On  the  breaking  out 
of  war  after  the  short  peace  of  Amiens,  Napoleon 
detained  the  British  subjects  that  were  found  in 
France,  as  prisoners  of  war,  but  how  far  he  carried 
this  principle,  I do  not  know.  His  motives  probably 
were  to  draw  money,  for  their  support,  from  England. 

6.  Who  shall  be  considered  as  combatants  and 
liable  to  be  made  prisoners  of  war?  Formerly  all  the 
subjects  of  an  enemy  were  considered  combatants, 
and  alike  liable  to  be  made  prisoners  of  war  and  to 
be  murdered,  or  sold  into  slavery.  Civilized  society, 
under  the  mild  influence  of  Christianity,  has  much 
ameliorated  the  condition  of  conquered  enemies,  and 
but  very  few,  except  such  as  are  found  with  arms  in 


Law  of  Nations,  book  3,  § 77. 


21  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  529 

their  hands,  are  excluded  from  the  list  of  non-com- 
batants. It  is  verj  desirable  to  extend  this  list,  so  as 
to  include  the  man  who  catches  whales,  as  well  as 
the  man  who  catches  smaller  fishes — the  man  who 
ploughs  the  ocean  on  his  own  peaceful  business,  as 
well  as  the  man  who  ploughs  the  field. 

7.  What  property  of  an  enemy  shall  be  liable  to 
capture?  Formerly  all  property,  both  public  and 
private,  real  and  personal,  became  the  property  of  the 
captor.  Now,  private  property  on  shore  is  respected, 
and  property  afloat  only  is  captured.  A merchant 
vessel,  on  the  stocks,  is  not  liable  to  capture ; on  the 
water  she  is,  except  small  vessels  employed  in  the 
fisheries.  Cicero  observes,  that  it  is  not  contrary  to 
the  law  of  nations  to  plunder  a person  whom  we  may 
lawfully  kill.*  But  if  we  may  plunder  those  only 
whom  we  may  lawfully  kill,  then  we  should  no  longer 
plunder  the  peaceful  merchant.  May  a conqueror 
seize  private  landed  estate  as  the  spoils  of  war  ? May 
churches  and  public  property  of  a civil  nature  be 
plundered  by  an  enemy  ? Burlamaqui  allows  it ; but 
it  has  become  a reproach  to  any  people  to  do  it.  The 
burning  of  the  capitol  at  Washington  was  justified  by 
the  British  on  the  plea  of  retaliation ; and  even,  on 
this  plea,  they  begin  to  be  ashamed  of  it. 

8.  A Congress  of  Nations  might  settle  what  pro- 
tection should  be  afforded  to  the  ships  of  enemies 
making  voyages  of  discovery.  The  American  govern- 
ment, and,  I believe,  the  French  also,  agreed  not  to 


* Cicero,  De  Officiis,  lib.  3,  c.  vi. 


67 


530 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


22 


molest  the  squadron  of  Captain  Cook.  Missionary 
stations,  settlements  on  barbarous  coasts  for  benevo- 
lent purposes,  light-houses,  buoys,  beacons,  and  even 
the  military  hospitals  of  the  enemy,  should  be 
respected. 

9.  Is  a compact  made  with  an  enemy  at  an  end  as 
soon  as  war  is  declared  1 Grotius  is  of  opinion  that 
contracts  made  with  an  enemy  are  binding.  Pulfen- 
dorf  doubts  it. 

10.  What  is  the  nature  of  a truce?  and  what 
formalities  are  necessary  at  its  commencement  and  its 
end  ? What  rights  does  a belligerent  give  up  by  a 
truce  ? and  what  does  he  retain  ? What  rights 
belong  to  heralds,  flags  of  truce  and  cartels?  How 
may  intercourse  be  carried  on  between  belligerents  ? 
What  security  does  a safe  conduct  concede?  What 
is  the  nature  of  parole,  ransom,  and  the  giving  of 
hostages  ? Even  in  this  day  of  comparative  light,  it 
may  be  well  to  put  some  limits  to  the  right  which  a 
belligerent  has  over  the  person  of  his  enemy  by  the 
general  consent  and  treaty  stipulations  of  all  Christian 
nations,  each  being  bound  to  all ; and  a Congress  of 
Nations  is  the  only  place  where  such  a compact  can 
be  executed. 

11.  Cannot  something  be  done  to  meliorate  the 
barbarous  custom  of  retortion  and  retaliation ; or  at 
least  to  regulate  it?  How  are  spies,  deserters,  and 
prisoners  who  have  violated  their  parole  to  be  treated  ? 
Is  it  not  possible  to  put  some  limit  to  the  power  of  a 
belligerent  over  the  life  of  his  enemy  ? Is  it  allowable, 


23 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


531 


under  any  circumstances,  to  kill  unresisting  persons, 
who  have  been  guilty  of  no  offence  but  being  made 
enemies  by  proclamation  1 There  is  reason  to  hope, 
that  much  may  be  done  to  moderate  the  severity  of 
war  in  all  these  particulars,  in  a body  representing  the 
congregated  wisdom  of  Christendom ; and  as  the 
judicial  combat  gradually  gave  place  to  the  grand 
assize,  when  the  follies  and  cruelties  of  the  ordeal  by 
battle  were  exposed  and  mitigated,  so  the  ordeal  of 
war  may  gradually  give  place  to  a court  of  nations. 


532 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


24 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  CERTAIN  RIGHTS  OF  BELLIGERENTS  WHICH  MAY  AFFECT 
NEUTRALS  ALSO. 

1.  The  rights  of  conquest — 2.  Of  Expatriation — 3.  Privateering — 
4.  Neutrals  found  in  an  enemy’s  camp. 

1.  Under  this  head  there  is  one  very  important 
question  to  be  settled  by  a Congress  of  Nations,  viz., 
How  long  shall  a territory  remain  in  possession  of  the 
conqueror  before  it  shall  be  considered  as  his  own,  so 
that  he  may  convey  it  away  to  another  nation,  and 
for  ever  cut  off  the  right  of  the  former  owner?  One 
would  naturally  suppose,  that  when  a treaty  of  peace 
is  ratified,  ceding  the  conquered  or  disputed  territory, 
the  right  of  the  former  possessor  would  for  ever  cease ; 
but  this  doctrine  is  disputed,  and  some  Americans 
have  hinted  at  a claim  to  the  western  coast  of  North 
America,  on  the  ground  that  its  relinquishment  to 
England  by  Spain,  was  the  effect  of  compulsion ; and 
that  since  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  and  all  which 
belonged  to  it,  we  stand  in  the  place  of  Spain  with 
respect  to  the  north-west  coast  of  America,  and 
have  a right  to  claim  it,  as  soon  as  we  are  strong 
enough.  We  ought,  however,  to  remember,  that  the 
cession  of  Louisiana  to  France,  from  whom  we  bought 
it,  was  also  the  effect  of  compulsion,  and  Spain  would 
have  an  equal  right  to  reclaim  the  whole  from  us. 


25  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  533 

The  American  forces  in  Georgia  were  authorized  by 
government  to  receive  Amelia  Island  in  East  Florida 
from  whomever  should  be  in  possession  of  it.  If  we 
had  received  Texas  into  our  Union,  would  it  have 
been  consistent  with  the  existing  law  of  nations'? 
The  principles  on  which  such  things  should  be  reg- 
ulated, can  only  be  settled  by  a Congress  of  Nations. 

2.  It  is  highly  important  to  the  peace  of  the  world 
in  general,  and  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
of  America  in  particular,  that  the  right  of  expatriation 
should  be  better  understood  than  it  is  now.  The 
American  government  claims  the  right  of  naturalizing 
foreigners  in  such  a manner  as  to  affect  their  allegiance 
to  their  native  country.  During  the  late  Hvars  in  Eu- 
rope, it  was  stated  by  a committee  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  that  6257  Americans  had  been 
impressed  into  the  navy  of  Great  Britain ; but  what 
proportion  of  them  were  natives  of  that  powder,  nat- 
uralized here,  the  committee  do  not  state.  The  sub- 
ject of  impressment  was  the  principal  cause  of  the  last 
war  between  Great  Britain  and  America,  though  Great 
Britain  had  always  disclaimed  the  right  of  impressing 
native  Americans.  Before  another  war  breaks  out  in 
Europe,  this  principle  of  expatriation  should  be  settled. 
Some  may  think  that  this  article  would  come  better 
in  the  next  chapter ; but  though  the  settlement  of  this 
question  is  of  great  importance  with  respect  to  neu- 
trals generally,  and  to  Great  Britain  and  America  in 
particular ; to  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  it  is  of  great 
importance  as  it  respects  belligerents  also.  Certainly  a 
nation  has  a natural  right  to  deal  with  her  own  subjects 


534 


CONGRESS  or  NATIONS. 


26 


as  she  may  think  proper,  and  a Congress  or  Court  of 
Nations  would  not  interfere  ; but  the  great  question  is, 
Who  are  her  own  subjects  1 In  settling  this  question, 
the  United  States  are  at  variance  with  almost  all  the 
rest  of  the  world,  and  the  settlement  of  the  question, 

— whether  a man  has  a right  to  expatriate  himself  or 
not, — is  of  great  importance  to  us,  not  only  as  a 
neutral,  but  as  a belligerent.  Having  a great  number 
of  naturalized  foreigners  among  us,  and  our  army 
being  composed,  in  a great  measure,  of  such  charac- 
ters, it  is  important  for  us  to  know  whether  we  ought 
to  retaliate,  if  any  of  them,  taken  fighting  against  their 
native  country,  should  be  condemned  to  death,  and 
whether,  by  the  present  law  of  nations  and  general 
usage,  we  should  have  a right  to  put  to  death  Ameri- 
cans only,  taken  in  arms  against  this  country,  or  any 
other  prisoners  of  war  also.  These  important  questions 
can  never  be  settled  by  any  unauthorized  writers  on 
the  law  of  nations,  and  can  only  be  done  by  a com- 
pact and  agreement.  I think  that  Great  Britain 
would  be  willing  to  relinquish  her  assumed  right  of 
searching  our  ships  for  her  seamen  on  the  high  seas, 

— and  perhaps  in  her  own  waters  also,  — for  the 
right  of  searching  for  slaves  under  our  flag  on  the 
coast  of  Africa,  which  right  we  now  deny. 

3.  A Congress  of  Nations  could  settle  the  great 
question,  so  long  agitated,  whether  privateering 
should  any  longer  be  allowed  in  carrying  on  the  wars 
of  civilized  and  Christian  countries  ; and  this  relic  of 
barbarism  and  piracy  be  at  last  done  away.  The 
government  of  the  United  States  has  made  great 


27 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


535 


endeavors  to  abolish  this  evil,  though  with  but  little 
success.  The  instructions  given,  by  the  Congress  of 
the  old  confederation,  to  our  ambassadors  abroad, 
directed  them  to  endeavor  to  procure  the  general 
abolition  of  the  practice  of  privateering.  Frederick 
III  of  Prussia  was  the  only  one  who  consented  to 
give  up  the  practice ; but  in  a Congress  of  Nations  its 
entire  abolition  would  easily  be  effected. 

4.  Another  question,  nearly  related  to  the  last  two 
is,  the  manner  in  which  a belligerent  nation  may  treat 
the  subject  of  a neutral  nation,  when  found  in  an 
enemy’s  camp,  fleet,  or  privateer?  By  many,  they 
are  considered  pirates,  and,  morally  speaking,  certainly 
they  are  no  better.  In  the  same  connection,  might 
be  agitated  the  question,  whether,  when  a nation  has 
offered  to  leave  its  disputes  with  another  nation  to 
the  Court  of  Nations,  and  that  other  nation  shall 
refuse,  or  having  so  referred  it,  shall  refuse  to  abide 
by  the  decision,  but  should  go  to  war  — in  such  a 
case,  may  the  subjects  of  a neutral  nation  engage  in 
war  against  the  party  so  offending  ? If  it  were  ever 
justifiable  to  take  a part  in  foreign  wars,  it  would  be 
under  such  circumstances,  and  a nation  might  then 
allow  its  subjects  to  engage  in  a foreign  war,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  nations,  if  not  according  to  the 
law  of  God. 


536 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


28 


CHAPTER  V. 


ON  THE  RIGHTS  OF  NEUTRALS,  TO  BE  ESTABLISHED  BY  THE  CON- 
GRESS OF  NATIONS. 


1.  Wars  often  extend  to  neutrals — 2.  Rights  of  a neutral  flag — 3.  Neu- 
tral flag  covering  enemy’s  property — 4.  Salvage  on  a neutral  ship — 
5.  Medicines  to  a blockaded  port — 6.  Of  blockade — 7.  Of  contra- 
band of  war — 8.  Right  of  search — 9.  Rights  of  a belligerent  over 
the  crew  of  a neutral — 10.  When  has  a neutral  the  right  to  buy 
captured  goods — 11.  Neutral  transports — 12.  Trade  of  a neutral  in 
the  manufactures  of  an  enemy — 13.  Neutral  trade  which  is  prohibited 
in  time  of  peace — 14.  Right  of  transition  through  a neutral  country 
— 15.  Rights  of  a private  neutral  to  engage  in  war — 16.  The  right 
of  a nation  or  an  individual  to  take  part  in  foreign  revolutions — 17. 
Extent  of  neutral  rights  from  the  shore — 18.  Otlier  subjects. 

1.  We  have  considered  the  rights  which  the  com- 
mon consent  of  mankind  has  allowed  to  belligerents, 
in  their  conduct  to  each  other ; but  this  consent  is  far 
from  being  universal,  and  many  points  remain  to  be 
settled  by  the  concentration  of  public  opinion  in  a 
Congress  of  Nations.  We  now  come  to  consider  the 
rights  which  public  opinion  has  generally  given  to 
neutrals,  on  many  points  on  which  there  is  yet  a con- 
siderable difference  of  opinion,  not  only  in  the  world  at 
large,  but  also  among  the  writers  on  international  law. 
It  is  owing  to  this  uncertainty,  that  when  two  powerful 
nations  go  to  war  with  one  another,  almost  all  the 
nations  of  Christendom  ar-e,  sooner  or  later,  forced 
into  the  contest.  If  the  rights  of  neutrals  were  better 
understood  — especially  if  the  general  principles, 


29  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  537 

which  should  regulate  the  conduct  of  neutrals  to 
belligerents  and  of  belligerents  to  neutrals,  were 
solemnly  agreed  to  by  the  principal  powers  of  Chris- 
tendom, assembled  in  a Congress,  — and  still  more 
especially,  if  there  were  a high  court  or  congress,  to 
which  injured  nations  might  appeal  for  redress,  wars 
would  not  spread  as  they  have  done,  and  would  not  be 
of  long  continuance.  Some  of  the  questions  relative  to 
the  rights  of  neutrals,  which  might  be  for  ever  settled 
by  the  Congress  of  Nations  proposed,  are  as  follows  : 

2.  Shall  a neutral  flag  cover  all  that  sails  under  it, 
provided  the  voyage  be  made  from  one  neutral  port 
to  another?  The  law  of  nature  would  seem  to  de- 
mand this.  The  sea  is  the  highway  of  nations,  and  a 
ship  is  but  an  extension  of  the  territory  of  the  nation  to 
which  it  belongs,  especially  on  the  high  seas,  and  until 
it  comes  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  another 
nation.  Hence  it  would  appear,  that  a belligerent  has 
no  more  right  to  impede  his  enemy  in  his  progress 
from  one  neutral  nation  to  another,  on  board  a neutral 
ship,  than  he  has  to  impede  him  in  passing  from  one 
part  of  a neutral  country  to  another,  especially  if  this 
enemy  be  not  a military  man.  Perhaps  some  con- 
cession to  the  rights  of  humanity  on  this  subject 
might  be  obtained  from  a Congress  of  Nations. 

3.  Shall  a neutral  flag  cover  an  enemy’s  property 
or  person,  when  bound  from  a neutral  to  a belliger- 
ent country,  and  if  not,  what  shall  be  the  law  of  cap- 
ture and  detention?  Shall  freight  be  paid  on  an 
enemy’s  goods  taken  out  ? Shall  this  enemy’s  prop- 


68 


538 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


30 


erty  affect  the  neutral  ship  and  the  rest  of  the  cargo  ? 
Burlainaqui  is  of  opinion  that  neutral  vessels,  having 
enemies’  property  on  board,  are  lawful  prize,  if  such 
property  be  on  board  with  the  consent  of  the  owners. 
As  to  all  those  questions,  he  observes,  that,  “ prudence 
and  just  policy  require  that  sovereigns  should  come  to 
some  agreement  among  themselves,  in  order  to  avoid 
the  disputes  which  may  arise  from  these  different 
causes.”  * This  is  the  very  thing  which  we  are 
aiming  at,  in  proposing  and  advocating  a Congress  of 
Nations. 

4.  Under  what  circumstances  shall  a neutral  ship 
pay  salvage  to  the  belligerent  who  recaptures  her 
from  his  enemy  ? Must  the  neutral  have  been  carried 
infra  prasidia  of  the  captor  — or  have  been  twenty- 
four  hours  in  his  possession,  and  be  loaded,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  with  the  property  of  his  enemy  1 It  is  hard 
to  make  a neutral  pay  salvage,  when  he  would  have 
been  released  if  he  had  been  carried  into  the  port  of 
the  captor. 

5.  If  a pestilence  should  break  out  in  a blockaded 
port,  would  a neutral  be  allowed  to  carry  medicines 
to  it?  Humanity  would  say,  yes.  I do  not  know 
what  a Congress  of  Nations  would  say. 

6.  What  shall  constitute  a blockade  ? Civilians 
are  not  agreed  on  this  subject.  Some  hold  that  a 
port,  to  be  blockaded,  must  be  invested  by  sea  and 


§24. 


Burlamaqui’s  Principles  of  Natural  and  Political  Law,  part  4,  c.  iv, 


31  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  539 

land.  Others  hold  a blockade  to  be  lawful,  if  the 
harbor  only  be  guarded  by  a blockading  squadron. 
What  notice  shall  be  given  of  the  blockade  1 Is  it 
sufficient  that  a blockade  be  published  by  proclama- 
tion, and  neutral  nations  warned  through  their  minis- 
ters at  the  court  of  the  blockading  power  1 Or  shall 
a neutral  ship  be  warned  once,  at  least,  and  within  a 
certain  distance  of  the  blockaded  port,  and  her  papers 
endorsed,  before  she  shall  be  liable  to  capture  for 
breach  of  blockade  1 If  a storm  drive  away  the  block- 
ading squadron,  does  the  blockade  continue  in  their 
absence  1 and  shall  a ship  which  enters  the  blockaded 
port  without  warning,  be  liable  to  be  seized  and  con- 
demned on  her  coming  out1  Shall  a neutral  ship, 
which  enters  a belligerent  port  before  a blockade,  be 
allowed  to  depart  7 The  “ Orders  in  Council  ” and 
the  “ Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees  ” were  infringements 
on  the  ancient  law  of  blockade.  Uncertainty  on  this 
subject  is  a fruitful  source  of  war  and  enmity.  If  the 
whole  subject  could  not  be  made  clear  by  a Congress 
of  Nations,  some  of  the  plainest  principles  might  be 
settled,  and  an  approximation  might  be  made  to  a 
clear  understanding  and  general  agreement  on  the 
whole  subject. 

7.  It  is  highly  important  that  the  list  of  articles 
considered  contraband  of  war  should  be  more  clearly 
defined  than  it  is  now,  and  considerably  reduced. 
Every  article  of  contraband  of  war  should  be  specified, 
and  not  left  to  general  rules.  Tar,  pitch,  hemp,  flax, 
iron,  and  other  articles  used  to  construct  and  fit  out 


540 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


32 


men-of-war,  are  not  solely  or  principally  used  for  that 
purpose,  and  should  not,  in  their  raw  state,  be  includ- 
ed in  the  list  of  articles  considered  contraband  of  war ; 
while  saltpetre,  sulphur,  and  some  other  crude  articles, 
are  almost  wholly  used  for  the  purposes  of  war.  But 
it  is  of  greater  importance  to  have  the  articles  consid- 
ered contraband  of  war  clearly  defined,  than  the  bare 
extension  or  curtailment  of  the  list  of  contraband  arti- 
cles. It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  a neutral 
merchant,  sending  his  ship  to  sea  loaded,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  with  tar,  iron,  hemp,  or  flax,  to  know  whether 
he  can  ensure  his  ship  as  free  from  contraband  of  war. 
Uncertainty  on  this  point  not  only  disturbs  the  har- 
mony of  nations,  but  may  be  the  cause  of  endless 
lawsuits  between  merchants  of  the  same  country  — 
the  insurer  and  insured.  It  is  impossible  for  any 
writer  on  the  law  of  nations  to  specify  what  articles 
shall  be  considered  contraband  of  war.  That  can  only 
be  done  by  a Congress  of  Nations ; and  if  done,  it 
would  dry  up  a fruitful  source  of  war. 

8.  The  right  of  searching  neutral  ships  for  contra- 
band of  war  and  enemies’  property  has  never  yet 
been  clearly  understood,  in  all  its  bearings.  Shall  the 
contraband  articles,  and  the  property  of  an  enemy 
alone,  be  liable  to  confiscation  1 or  shall  the  smallest 
quantity  of  naval  stores  or  enemies’  property  authorize 
the  confiscation  of  the  other  part  of  the  cargo  and  the 
ship  ? May  a neutral  ship  be  carried  into  the  terri- 
tory of  a belligerent  for  search,  or  shall  it  be  done  at 
sea  only?  Shall  freight  be  paid  on  the  property 


33 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


541 


seized,  or  not  ? These  questions  can  only  be  settled 
in  a Congress  of  Nations. 

9.  Has  a belligerent  a right  to  take  from  a neutral 
ship,  without  the  consent  of  her  captain,  one  of  the 
crew  who  is  neither  the  subject  nor  the  enemy  of  the 
belligerent,  and  thus  break  the  lawful  contract  of  such 
seaman  with  the  captain  1 Should  it  make  any 
difference,  if  the  subject  of  the  enemy  had  been 
naturalized  in  the  country  of  the  neutral  ship  1 

10.  How  long  a time  shall  a captured  ship,  or 
goods,  remain  in  the  possession  of  a belligerent, 
before  a neutral  has  a right  to  buy  them  1 Grotius 
thinks  not  until  they  are  brought  within  the  precincts 
of  the  country  of  the  captor.  Burlamaqui  thinks 
that  the  captor  has  a right  to  sell  them  as  soon  as 
captured.* 

11.  Has  a neutral  ship  a right  to  transport  the 
soldiers  and  military  stores  of  a belligerent  ? If  not, 
how  shall  the  crime  be  punished  ; and  at  what  time 
shall  the  ship,  so  used,  be  free  from  capture  and 
condemnation  for  the  act  1 

12.  Has  a belligerent  the  right  to  prohibit  neutrals 
from  trading  in  the  manufactures  of  an  enemy  ? 
Under  the  “ Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees,”  vessels  were 
condemned  for  having  on  board  English  manufactures, 
and  even  for  speaking  or  being  boarded  by  British 
men-of-war.  Were  either  of  these  causes  of  con- 
demnation justifiable  by  the  law  of  nations? 


See  Burlamaqui,  part  4,  c.  vii,  § 15,  ei  seq. 


542  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  34 

13.  Has  a neutral  a right  to  carry  on  a trade  in 
time  of  war,  which  he  is  not  allowed  in  time  of  peace  1 
This  is  a very  important  question,  for  on  it  depends 
the  legality  of  much  of  the  trade  of  neutrals.  The 
difficulties  attending  this  question  nearly  brought  the 
United  States  into  a war  with  Great  Britain,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  war  of  the  French  revolution. 
American  vessels  traded  directly  from  French  colo- 
nies in  the  West  Indies  to  France,  or  barely  touched 
at  some  American  port,  to  neutralize  their  cargo, 
without  discharging  it?  This  was  complained  of  by 
the  British  government,  and  called  out  the  famous 
pamphlet  entitled  “War  in  Disguise,”  supposed  to 
have  been  written  under  the  direction  of  the  English 
cabinet.  On  the  other  hand,  the  “Navigation  Act” 
of  Great  Britain  was  almost  entirely  suspended,  and 
American  vessels  were  allowed  to  carry  almost 
any  thing  to  England,  from  almost  any  country. 

14.  Has  a belligerent  a right  to  pass  through  the 
territory  of  a neutral  without  his  consent?  This  is  a 
very  difficult  and  complicated  question,  and  is  not 
likely  soon  to  be  settled,  even  in  a Congress  of 
Nations ; but  some  approximation  may  be  made 
toward  a settlement  of  it.  Grotius  allows  the  right, 
while  Burlamaqui  denies  it,  and  Vattel  allows  it  in 
certain  cases  and  denies  it  in  others.* 

15.  Has  a private  subject  a right  to  engage  in  war 
against  a country  with  which  his  own  country  is  at 


* Vattel,  book  3,  c.  vii. 


35 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


543 


peace  1 It  was  laid  down  as  a principle  by  General 
Jackson,  in  the  case  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister,  that 
such  characters  should  be  treated  as  pirates,  and  this 
opinion  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  American  people. 
Is  this  principle  a correct  one?  A Congress  of 
Nations  only  can  settle  the  question. 

16.  The  right  of  foreign  nations  or  individuals  to 
take  a military  part  in  the  revolutions  of  other  coun- 
tries should  be  clearly  defined,  and  either  allowed  or 
forbidden.  Not  only  should  the  right  of  governments 
be  defined,  but  the  question  should  be  settled,  whether 
a nation  has  a right  to  allow  of  forces  being  raised  from 
among  their  subjects  for  such  objects.  The  world  has 
been  much  in  the  dark  on  this  subject,  and  contrary 
opinions  have  prevailed,  according  to  circumstances. 
Great  Britain  has  blamed  this  country  very  severely 
because  we  have  not  prevented  our  citizens  from 
taking  part  in  the  troubles  in  Canada ; while  she  has 
openly  allowed  the  enlistment  of  soldiers,  to  take  a 
part  in  the  revolutions  in  Spain  and  Portugal,  and  in 
the  American  revolution  bought  whole  regiments  of 
foreign  troops.  In  1833,  two  hundred  and  fifty  men 
were  enlisted  in  England  for  the  war  in  Portugal, 
uncertain  which  side  they  would  take. 

1 7.  How  far  from  shore  shall  neutral  rights  extend  ? 
Some  say  to  the  distance  of  a cannon  shot — some  to 
the  distance  of  a league.  Has  a belligerent  a right 
to  anchor  on  a neutral  shore,  in  order  to  blockade  his 
enemy’s  fleet  in  a neutral  harbor?  It  was  very 
grievous  to  the  Americans,  during  the  last  great  wars 


544 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


36 


in  Europe,  to  have  British  men-of-war  anchor  off  our 
harbors,  and  even  in  our  very  roadsteads  blockade 
French  ships  of  war,  and  examine  every  ship  going 
and  coming,  and  impress  seamen.  Some  of  our  bays 
are  more  than  two  leagues  wide.  Has  a belligerent 
a right  to  attack  an  enemy  in  our  bays  1 

18.  There  are  many  other  subjects  relating  to  the 
rights  of  neutrals,  the  principles  of  which  ought  to  be 
fixed  by  general  consent,  in  a time  of  peace,  while 
the  public  mind  is  unbiased  by  passing  events ; and 
no  power  is  adequate  to  this  duty  but  a Congress 
of  Nations.  Were  it  done,  many  wars  would  be 
prevented. 


37 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


545 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON  PRINCIPLES  AND  ACTS  OF  A CIVIL  AND  PACIFIC  NATURE,  AFFECT- 
ING THE  INTERCOURSE  OF  THE  WORLD  AND  THE  HAPPINESS 
OF  MANKIND,  TO  BE  SETTLED  AND  AGREED  UPON 
BY  A CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  The  cooperation  of  nations  required  for  plans  of  general  utility — 
2.  Rights  of  ambassadors — 3.  Surrender  of  felons  and  debtors — 
4.  Suppression  of  the  slave  trade  and  piracy — 5.  Improvements  in 
international  communication  — 6.  International  copy-rights  and 
patents — 7.  Free  navigation  of  bays  and  rivers — 8.  Rights  of 
discovery  and  colonization — 9.  General  reduction  of  military  estab- 
lishments— 10.  Restoration  of  military  trophies — 11.  Other  subjects. 


1.  There  are  many  things  of  a pacific  and  civil 
nature,  which  require  the  cooperation  of  nations,  and 
which  can  only  be  settled  in  a congress  of  ambassa- 
dors, where  the  subjects  may  be  freely  discussed  and 
adjusted. 

2.  The  rights  of  ambassadors,  ministers,  envoys, 
and  consuls,  should  be  settled  in  such  a manner  as 
no  longer  to  be  the  subject  of  international  disputes. 
That  the  persons,  domestics  and  property  of  diplo- 
matic agents  should  be  exempted  from  arrest  for  debt, 
admits  not  of  a question ; but  it  is  doubtful  how  far 
such  characters  should  be  exempted  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  criminal  code  of  the  countries  where  they 
reside.  I suppose  such  persons  may  be  arrested  and 
imprisoned  for  crime  ; but  I doubt  if  they  can  be 
further  punished  in  any  other  way  than  being  sent 

69 


546 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


38 


out  of  the  country  or  delivered  up  to  their  own  gov- 
ernment. How  far  shall  an  ambassador’s  house  be  an 
asylum  for  criminals  and  debtors,  not  members  of  the 
legation  where  the  crimes  were  committed,  or  the 
debts  contracted? 

3.  The  surrender  of  felons  and  debtors — PufFen- 
dorf  is  of  opinion,  that  felons  should  not  be  delivered 
up,  unless  there  is  a treaty  stipulation  to  that  effect. 
Now  a Congress  of  Nations  is  a congress  of  ambas- 
sadors, who  may  be  empowered  to  make  these  treaty 
stipulations.  Burlamaqui,  however,  is  of  opinion,  that 
all  felons  should  be  given  up,  without  any  treaty  stip- 
ulations. With  respect  to  persons,  charged  with 
political  crimes  in  time  of  civil  war  and  commotion, 
and  refugees  from  conquered  countries,  the  case  is 
moi'e  difficult.  Nations  may  agree  to  warn  such 
characters  away,  especially  if  demanded  by  the  nation 
from  whence  they  come,  and  more  especially  if  they 
should  be  reasonably  suspected  of  forming  plots  and 
conspiracies  against  their  own  country ; but  it  would 
be  hard  to  give  them  up,  if  innocent  of  any  such 
thing,  at  least  until  the  excitement  in  their  own 
country  had  subsided. 

4.  A Congress  of  Nations  is  the  only  place  where 
measures  may  be  concerted,  effectually  to  suppress 
the^slave  trade  and  piracy.  Nations,  when  represented 
in  a general  congress,  would  more  willingly  give  up 
the  slave  trade  ; and  more  willingly  allow  their  vessels 
to  be  searched  for  slaves.  Measures  could  be  agreed 
on,  which  would  nearly  put  a stop  to  piracy ; but  if 
wars  cease,  piracy  will  cease  of  course,  for  war  is  the 
nursery  of  pirates. 


39 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


547 


5.  Some  mutual  understanding  and  cooperation  in 
making  railroads  and  canals  across  the  isthmus  of 
Darien  and  Suez,  might  be  agreed  on,  and  the  erec- 
tion of  lights  and  buoys  on  uninhabited  or  barbarous 
coasts  and  straits  much  frequented  by  civilized 
nations  might  be  attempted  by  this  Congress,  and  the 
principles  of  salvage  on  wrecked  property  and  vessels 
abandoned  at  sea  might  be  better  defined. 

6.  The  subjects  of  international  patents  and  copy- 
rights might  be  attended  to  by  this  Congress,  and 
some  progress  might  be  made  toward  an  international 
post-office,  to  extend  all  over  the  world.  Neither  is 
it  too  much  to  expect,  that  the  time  may  come,  when 
an  universal  standard  of  weights,  measures  and  coins 
will  be  settled  by  such  a Congress. 

7.  The  general  principle  of  the  free  navigation  of 
bays  and  rivers  might  be  established  by  this  Congress, 
and  thus  many  inconveniences  and,  perhaps,  wars 
saved.  It  seems  perfectly  reasonable,  that  a nation 
possessing  one  bank  of  a navigable  river,  but  whose 
territory  does  not  extend  quite  to  the  ocean,  should 
have  a right  to  the  free  navigation  of  that  river, 
especially  if  she  possesses  both  of  the  banks,  but  not 
the  mouth.  It  is  true,  much  may  be  said  for  and 
against  this  principle,  and  a Congress  of  Nations  is 
the  place  in  which  to  say  it. 

8.  The  right  of  discovery  and  colonization  has 
never  yet  been  settled.  A want  of  a proper  under- 
standing of  this  subject  has  been  the  cause  of  many 
wars. 

9.  In  a Congress  of  Nations,  measures  could  be 
agreed  upon  for  the  reduction  of  the  vast  military  and 


548 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


40 


naval  establishments  of  Christendom,  which  are  such 
an  intolerable  burden  on  the  community,  consuming 
seven -eighths  of  the  income  of  nations.  One  nation 
keeps  up  these  immense  establishments  because 
another  does.  If  nations  would  agree  to  reduce  their 
establishments,  it  could  be  done  with  safety  and 
advantage.  If  the  number  of  ships  could  not  be 
restrained,  the  size  might  be,  and  no  nation  be  allowed 
to  have  a ship  of  war  above  a certain  size,  or  to  carry 
more  than  a certain  weight  of  metal. 

10.  This  Congress  would  be  the  proper  place  to 
agree  on  the  general  restoration  of  all  military  trophies 
and  captured  standards.  The  retention  of  these 
trophies,  and  the  vain-glorious  display  of  them  in 
temples  dedicated  to  the  Prince  of  peace,  is  no  less  an 
insult  to  common  sense,  than  it  is  an  impious  desecra- 
tion of  these  solemn  temples.  It  is  a relic  of  heathen- 
ism, which  ought,  long  ago,  to  have  been  abandoned 
by  all  nations  bearing  the  Christian  name.  To  restore 
these  trophies  to  the  nations  from  which  they  were 
captured,  would  be  no  less  wise  than  magnanimous. 
But  it  would  be  best  of  all,  if  some  place  were 
selected,  near  the  location  of  the  Congress  of  Nations, 
where  all  the  captured  standards  and  other  trophies 
of  war, — except  works  of  art,  which  should  be  restored 
to  their  former  owners,  — should  be  piled  together  in 
one  vast  heap,  and  consumed.  It  would  be  a burnt- 
offering  worthy  of  the  cause  of  peace.  The  metallic 
parts,  having  passed  the  ordeal  of  the  fire,  might  be 
coined  into  medallions,  ivith  suitable  devices  and 
inscriptions,  and  circulated  through  the  world.  Some- 
thing of  this  kind  was  done  at  Madrid,  July  1,  1823. 


41  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  549 

“Agreeably  to  arrangements  made,  fifty  non-commis- 
sioned officers  and  veterans  of  the  French  army,  each 
carrying  one  of  the  Spanish  standards,  which,  during 
the  late  wars,  had  been  taken  by  the  French,  repaired 
to  the  palace  of  the  Regency,  and  restored  those 
trophies  to  the  Saloons  of  the  Columns.  The  cere- 
mony was  conducted  with  great  pomp.”*  For  the 
same  reasons,  the  names  of  bridges,  palaces,  &.C., 
which  have  been  named  from  some  great  victory, 
should  be  changed ; and  triumphal  arches  and  other 
monuments  of  war  should  be  demolished,  and  the 
materials  taken  to  erect  hospitals,  colleges,  and 
churches.  This  appears  to  the  present  age  Utopian ; 
but  it  is  no  more  Utopian  than  a millenium,  when  men 
will  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares  and  their 
spears  into  pruning-hooks.  Centuries  may  roll  away 
before  this  grand  consummation,  so  devoutly  to  be 
wished,  will  take  place,  but  it  will  be  done. 

11.  There  are  many  other  subjects,  of  a pacific 
and  civil  nature,  which  might  be  discussed  in  a 
Congress  of  Nations,  and  settled,  if  advisable,  or  put 
in  a train  of  settlement.  These  may  come  up,  from 
time  to  time,  as  the  world  advances  in  Christianity 
and  civilization.  The  Congress  might  continue  to 
sit,  for  the  settlement  of  these  questions,  so  far  as 
practicable ; but  at  any  time  of  its  session,  it  might 
take  up  the  great  subject  of  a Court  or  Nations, 
and  take  measures  for  its  organization.  This  is  the 
subject  of  the  next  chapter. 


* Boston  Centinel,  of  Sept.  8,  182-3. 


550 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


42 


CHAPTER  VII. 


A COURT  OF  NATIONS  FOR  THE  PEACEFUL  ADJUDICATION  OF  THOSE 
CASES  OF  INTERNATIONAL  DIFFICULTY  WHICH  SHOULD  BE 
REFERRED  TO  IT,  BY  THE  MUTUAL  CONSENT  OF 
TWO  OR  MORE  NATIONS. 


1.  Organization— 2.  Appointment  of  members — 3.  A majority  to  decide 
disputes — 4.  Rules  of  the  Court — 5.  Cases  of  disputed  boundary — 
6.  To  act  as  a mediator — 7.  May  judge  cases  of  right  of  succession, 
if  called  on  by  both  parties — 8.  Suggest  laws  to  the  Congress — 
9.  Otlier  things  to  be  done  by  them. 

1.  It  is  proposed  to  organize  a Court  of  Nations, 
composed  of  as  many  members  as  the  Congress  of 
Nations  shall  previously  agree  upon,  say  two  from 
each  of  the  powers  represented  at  the  Congress. 
The  power  of  the  court  to  be  merely  advisory.  It  is 
to  act  as  a high  court  of  admiralty,  but  without  its 
enforcing  powers.  There  is  to  be  no  sheriff,  or  posse, 
to  enforce  its  commands.  It  is  to  take  cognizance 
only  of  such  cases  as  shall  be  referred  to  it,  by  the 
free  and  mutual  consent  of  both  parties  concerned, 
like  a chamber  of  commerce ; and  is  to  have  no  more 
power  to  enforce  its  decisions  than  an  ecclesiastical 
court  in  this  country. 

2.  The  members  of  this  court  are  to  be  appointed 
by  the  governments  represented  in  the  Congress  of 


43 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


551 


Nations,  and  shall  hold  their  places  according  to  the 
tenure  previously  agreed  on  in  the  Congress  — prob- 
ably during  good  behaviour.  Whether  they  should 
be  paid  by  the  governments  sending  them,  or  by  the 
nations  represented  in  the  Congress  conjointly,  ac- 
cording to  the  ratio  of  their  population  or  wealth,  may 
be  agreed  on  in  the  Congress.  The  court  should 
organize  itself  by  choosing  a president  and  vice- 
presidents  from  among  themselves,  and  appoint  the 
necessary  clerks,  secretaries,  reporters,  &c. ; and  they 
should  hear  counsel  on  both  sides  of  the  questions  to 
be  judged.  They  might  meet  once  a year  for  the 
transaction  of  business,  and  adjourn  to  such  time  and 
place  as  they  should  think  proper.  Their  meeting 
should  never  be  in  a country  which  had  a case  on 
trial.  These  persons  should  enjoy  the  same  priv- 
ileges and  immunities  as  ambassadors. 

3.  Their  verdicts,  like  the  verdicts  of  other  great 
courts,  should  be  decided  by  a majority,  and  need  not 
be,  like  the  decrees  of  the  Congress,  unanimous. 
The  majority  should  appoint  one  of  their  number  to 
make  out  their  verdict,  giving  a statement  of  facts 
from  the  testimony  presented  to  the  court,  and  the 
reasoning  on  those  facts  by  which  they  come  to  a 
conclusion. 

4.  All  cases  submitted  to  the  court  should  be 
judged  by  the  true  interpretation  of  existing  treaties, 
and  by  the  laws  enacted  by  the  Congress  and  ratified 
by  the  nations  represented ; and  where  these  treaties 
and  laws  fail  of  establishing  the  point  at  issue,  they 


552 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


44 


should  judge  the  cause  by  the  principles  of  equity 
and  justice. 

5.  In  cases  of  disputed  boundary,  the  court  should 
have  the  power  to  send  surveyors  appointed  by  them- 
selves, but  at  the  expense  of  the  parties,  to  survey 
the  boundaries,  collect  facts  on  the  spot,  and  report  to 
the  court.  Had  there  been  such  a court,  the  boun- 
dary line  between  Maine  and  New  Brunswick  would, 
long  ago,  have  been  equitably  settled,  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  both  parties.  Some  of  the  ex-governors  of 
Maine  have  expressed  to  me  that  opinion.  The  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States,  very  soon,  settled 
a similar  difficulty  between  Massachusetts  and  Rhode 
Island. 

6.  This  court  should  not  only  decide  on  all  cases 
brought  before  it  by  any  two  or  more  independent, 
contending  nations,  but  they  should  be  authorized  to 
offer  their  mediation  where  war  actually  exists,  or  in 
any  difficulty  arising  between  any  two  or  more 
nations  which  would  endanger  the  peace  of  the  world. 
Indeed,  they  should  act  as  conservators  of  the  peace 
of  Christendom,  and  watch  over  the  welfare  of  man- 
kind, either  of  the  nations  of  the  confederacy,  or  the 
world  at  large.  Often  nations  go  to  war  on  a point 
of  honor ; and  having  begun  to  threaten,  think  they 
cannot  recede  without  disgrace ; at  the  same  time, 
they  would  be  glad  to  catch  at  such  an  excuse  for 
moderation ; and  often,  when  nations  are  nearly 
exhausted  by  a protracted  war,  they  would  be  glad 
to  make  peace,  but  they  fear  to  make  the  first  ad- 
vances, lest  it  should  be  imputed  to  weakness ; and 


45  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  553 

they  would  joyfully  embrace  a mediator.  In  cases 
where  ambassadors  would  neither  be  sent  nor  accepted, 
the  members  of  this  court  might  go,  as  heralds  of 
peace.  How  much  better  it  would  have  been  for  the 
honor  and  interest  of  France,  if  she  had  submitted 
her  late  disputes  with  Mexico,  Buenos  Ayres  and 
queen  Pomare,  to  such  a court,  rather  than  be  at  so 
great  an  expense  to  force  an  unwilling  confession, 
which  will  rankle  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  have 
been  forced  to  it,  for  a whole  generation. 

7.  If  the  court  should  be  applied  to,  to  settle  any 
internal  dispute  between  any  two  contending  factions, 
such  as  the  right  of  succession  to  the  throne,  it  w^ould 
be  their  duty  to  hear  the  parties,  and  give  their  opin- 
ion according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  the  country 
asking  their  advice ; but  they  should  never  officiously 
offer  an  exparte  verdict,  though  they  might  propose 
terms  of  reconciliation.  It  is  probable,  that,  had  such 
a court  existed,  the  troubles  in  Spain  and  Portugal 
would  have  been  of  short  duration. 

8.  It  should  be  the  duty  of  a Court  of  Nations, 
from  time  to  time,  to  suggest  topics  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Congress,  as  new  or  unsettled 
principles,  favorable  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of 
nations,  would  present  themselves  to  the  court,  in  the 
adjudication  of  cases.  They  would  be  the  more  able 
to  do  this,  from  their  being  more  than  all  other  men 
conversant  with  such  subjects,  and  their  intimations 
would  be  well  received  by  the  Congress,  who  should 
in  all  their  acts,  study  the  good  of  mankind  and  the 


70 


554 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


46 


interests  of  humanity;  so  that  in  doubtful  cases 
philanthropy  should  be  thrown  into  the  scale. 

9.  There  are  many  other  cases  beside  those 
abovementioned,  in  which  such  a court  would  either 
prevent  war  or  end  it.  A nation  would  not  be 
justified,  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  in  going  to  war, 
when  there  was  an  able  and  impartial  umpire  to 
judge  its  case;  and  many  a dispute  would  be 
quashed  at  the  outset,  if  it  were  known  that  the 
world  would  require  an  impartial  investigation  of  it 
by  able  judges. 


47 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


555 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


HISTORICAL  NOTICES  OF  PAST  ATTEMPTS  AT  SOMETHING  LIKE  A 
CONGRESS  AND  COURT  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Plans  in  some  things  resembling  this  very  ancient — 2.  Amphictyonic 
Council — 3.  Achaean  League — 4.  Lycian  Confederacy — 5.  League 
of  the  Hanse  towns — 7.  Great  scheme  of  Henry  IV — 8.  Holy  Al- 
liance— 9-22.  Congress  of  Panama — 23.  Inferences  to  be  deduced 
from  it — 24.  Remarks  on  the  foregoing — 25.  Some  of  their  features 
retained — 26.  Number  of  delegates. 


1.  From  the  history  of  the  earliest  ages,  it  appears 
that  mankind  have  been  desirous  of  something  like 
the  proposed  plan  of  a Congress  and  Court  of  Na- 
tions, especially  in  communities  of  small  independent 
states,  where  from  the  contiguity  of  the  parties,  such 
a plan  was  more  easy  to  be  carried  into  effect,  and 
was  more  necessary  for  their  safety  and  happiness. 
In  most  of  these  confederations,  protection  from 
external  violence  was  as  much  an  object  as  internal 
peace.  There  were,  therefore,  many  features  in 
ancient  councils,  diets,  and  congresses,  which  do  not 
at  all  enter  into  our  plan,  and  which  sooner  or  later 
paved  the  way  for  the  ruin  of  theirs.  Nevertheless, 
while  they  did  continue,  they  were  a great  blessing 
to  the  parties  concerned.  We,  by  no  means,  propose 
them  as  models  for  our  plan,  but  adduce  them,  only 
to  show  that,  if  so  great  an  advance  towards  the 
perfection  of  civil  society  could  be  made  in  times  of 


556 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


48 


ignorance,  superstition  and  barbarity,  much  more  is 
to  be  expected  from  a somewhat  similar  plan,  in  this 
age  of  reason,  philanthropy,  and  Christianity.  After 
reviewing  these  plans,  I shall  attempt  to  show  where- 
in they  differed  from  that  which  we  propose,  and  also 
what  parts  of  them  are  to  be  retained  in  our  plan,  and 
what  rejected  from  it. 

2.  The  Council  of  the  Amphictyons  consisted 
originally  of  twelve  states  or  cities,  and  finally  extend- 
ed to  thirty-one.  It  was  established  in  the  year  1497, 
B.  C.  Rollin  says,  “ It  was,  in  a manner,  the  holding 
of  a general  assembly  of  the  states  of  Greece.  Its 
establishment  is  attributed  to  Amphictyon,  king  of 
Athens,  who  gave  it  his  name.  His  principal  view 
was  to  unite,  in  the  sacred  bond  of  amity,  the  several 
states  of  Greece  admitted  into  it,  and  oblige  them,  by 
that  union,  to  undertake  the  defence  of  each  other, 
and  be  mutually  vigilant  for  the  happiness  and  tran- 
quillity of  their  country.  It  was  held  at  Thermopylae 
and  sometimes  at  Delphos,  and  regularly  assembled 
in  the  spring  and  fall,  and  oftener  if  occasion  required. 
Each  city  sent  two  deputies,  and  consequently  had 
two  votes  in  the  council,  and  that  without  distinction, 
or  the  more  powerful  having  any  prerogative  of  honor 
or  preeminence  over  inferior  states  in  regard  to  the 
suffrages  — the  liberty,  on  which  these  people  valued 
themselves,  requiring  that  every  thing  should  be  equal 
among  them.  They  had  full  power  to  discuss  all 
dijferences  which  might  arise  hetiveen  the  Amphictyonic 
cities''  Rees,  in  his  Cyclopaedia  says,  “ They  decided 
all  public  differences  and  disputes  between  any  of  the 


49 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


557 


cities  of  Greece,  and  their  determinations  were  received 
with  the  greatest  veneration,  and  were  ever  held 
sacred  and  inviolable.  Had  its  members  been  ac- 
tuated by  a spirit  of  peace,  of  justice  and  of  good 
order,  it  would  have  rendered  it  for  ever  respectable.” 
But  Philip,  king  of  Macedon,  by  his  intrigues,  gained 
an  ascendency  in  this  famous  council,  and  was  the 
means  of  reducing  it  to  a mere  shadow.  Neverthe- 
less it  continued  until  after  the  reign  of  Augustus 
Caesar,  or  for  fifteen  centuries,  and  gradually  expired, 
3.  Of  the  Achaean  League,  Rees  says,  “ Strangers 
to  the  desire  of  conquest,  and  having  little  connection 
with  corrupt  nations,  they  never  employed  false- 
hood, even  against  their  enemies.  Although  each 
city  was  independent  of  the  others,  yet  they  formed 
one  body  and  one  state.  So  great  was  their  charac- 
ter for  justice  and  probity,  that  the  Greek  cities  of 
Italy  referred  their  disputes  to  their  arbitration.  The 
Lacedemonians  and  Thebans  referred  to  them  an 
interesting  matter  of  dissension  between  them.  Hav- 
ing long  retained  their  liberty,  they  ceased  not  to 
assemble  when  the  necessity  of  public  deliberation 
required  it,  and  even  when  the  rest  of  Greece  was 
threatened  with  war  and  pestilence.”  Polybius  ob- 
serves, “ The  Achaeans  so  far  gained  the  esteem  and 
confidence  of  all  the  Europeans,  that  their  name 
became  common  to  all  that  country.”  The  Achaean 
League,  however,  at  length  fell  into  discord,  and 
became,  in  consequence,  like  the  Amphictyons,  sub- 
ject to  the  Lacedemonians.  But  280  years  before 
Christ  the  league  was  renewed,  and  continued  134 
years  longer. 


558 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


50 


4.  The  Lycian  Confederacy  consisted  of  twenty- 
three  cities,  in  which  a monarchical  form  of  govern- 
ment prevailed.  In  the  general  council,  the  large 
cities  had  three  votes,  the  smaller  two.  They  had 
once  been  addicted  to  piracy  ; but  Rees  says,  “ The 
Lycian s are  highly  commended  by  the  ancients  for 
their  sobriety  and  manner  of  administering  justice.” 

5.  The  league  of  the  Hanse  towns  commenced  in 
the  12th  century,  and  was  confirmed  and  established 
in  the  year  1234.  An  extraordinary  general  assem- 
bly was  held  every  ten  years,  in  which  they  solemnly 
renewed  their  league,  admitted  new  members  and 
expelled  old  ones,  if  they  proved  refractory.  This 
confederation  first  commenced  by  a league  between 
the  cities  of  Lubeck  and  Hamburgh,  and  afterward 
consisted  of  twelve  towns  situated  near  the  Baltic. 
They  first  formed  a system  of  international  laws,  enacted 
in  their  general  assemblies.  The  league  afterward  ex- 
tended to  between  seventy  and  eighty  towns  and  cities. 
In  the  year  1730,  the  regular  number  was  sixty-three, 
besides  which  there  were  forty-four  towns  that  were 
considered  as  allies.  While  they  kept  at  peace  with 
the  surrounding  nations,  they  flourished  beyond  all 
precedent,  but  having  become  rich  and  powerful,  they 
equipped  fleets  and  raised  armies ; and  about  the 
year  1346,  they  waged  a successful  war  against 
Waldemar  III,  king  of  Denmark;  and  again  against 
the  same  power  in  1428.  By  this  means,  they  drew 
on  them  the  jealousy  of  other  powers,  and  the  league 
was  gradually  reduced  ; so  that  the  present  Hanseatic 
League  consists  only  of  the  three  cities,  Lubeck,  Ham- 


51 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


559 


burgh,  and  Bremen ; and  in  the  definitive  treaty  of 
1803,  they  were  acknowledged  as  Hanseatic  cities, 
with  a guaranty  of  their  jurisprudence  and  perpetual 
neutrality. 

6.  The  foundation  of  the  confederation  of  the  states 
of  Switzerland,  commonly  called  the  Helvetic  Union, 
was  laid  in  1308.  Rees  says,  “The  code  of  public 
law  between  the  combined  republics  of  Switzerland 
is  founded  on  the  treaty  of  Sempatch  in  1393,  upon 
the  convention  of  Stantz,  and  the  treaty  of  peace  in 
1712,  at  Arau,  between  the  Protestant  and  Catholic 
cantons.  From  these  several  treaties  it  appears,  that 
the  Helvetic  Union  is  a perpetual  defensive  alliance 
between  independent  powers,  to  protect  each  other  by 
their  united  force  against  all  foreign  enemies.  Another 
essential  object  of  the  league  is,  to  preserve  general 
peace  and  good  order;  for  which  purpose  it  is  covenant- 
ed, that  all  public  dissensions  shall  finally  be  settled 
betiveen  the  contending  parties  in  an  amicable  manner  ; 
and  ivith  this  view  particular  judges  and  arbitrators 
are  appointed,  loho  shall  he  empoivered  to  compose 
the  dissensions  which  may  happen  to  arise.  To  this 
is  added  a reciprocal  guaranty  of  the  forms  of  gov- 
ernment established  in  the  respective  commonwealths. 
No  separate  engagement,  which  any  of  the  cantons 
may  conclude,  can  be  valid  if  it  be  inconsistent  with 
the  fundamental  articles  of  this  general  union.  With 
these  exceptions,  the  combined  states  are  indepen- 
dent of  each  other.  They  may  form  alliances  with 
any  power,  or  may  reject  the  same,  though  all  the 
others  have  acceded  to  it — may  grant  auxiliary  troops 


560 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


52 


to  foreign  princes  — may  prohibit  the  money  of  the 
other  cantons  from  being  current  within  their  own 
territories  — may  impose  taxes,  and,  in  short,  perform 
every  other  act  of  absolute  sovereignty.  The  public 
affairs  of  the  Helvetic  body  are  discussed  and  deter- 
mined in  their  several  diets.”  “The  ordinary  meet- 
ing of  the  general  diet  is  in  January,  annually,  and 
continues  sitting  one  month.  The  extraordinary 
assemblies  are  summoned  upon  particular  occasions.” 
“Each  canton  sends  as  many  deputies  as  it  thinks 
proper.”  “The  whole  republic  is  composed  of 
thirteen  cantons,  thirteen  incorporated  territories  and 
twenty-one  independent  lordships.”  “Every  town 
and  state  has  its  own  particular  constitution  for  the 
management  of  its  churches,  academies,  schools  and 
other  ecclesiastical  affairs  ; but  all  live  in  mutual  amity, 
without  invading  the  rights  and  privileges  of  one 
atiother.”  J.  Mallet  Du  Pan,  who  seems  to  have  been 
an  inhabitant  of  Switzerland,  and  probably  a native, 
in  his  “History  of  the  Destruction  of  the  Helvetic 
Union,”  published  in  London,  in  1798,  says  of  the 
Helvetic  Confederacy,  “ Those  states,  united  for  their 
common  preservation,  consisted  of  twenty  republics, 
forming  one  republic,  and,  notwithstanding  the  defect 
of  a collective  body  without  sovereignty,  experience 
promised  it  duration  ; for  the  imperfection  of  its  federal 
union  was  coimterbalanced  by  great  advantages.  If 
it  enfeebled  subordination  in  those  aggregate  com- 
munities, it  also  left  them  with  independence,  the 
invaluable  privilege  of  obeying  their  own  laws  and  of 
being  governed  by  their  immediate  fellow-citizens.” 


53 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


561 


“The  relations  and  duties  of  this  defensive  league 
were  settled  by  simple  agreement,  and  their  sanction 
was  ratified  by  time  and  self-interest.  No  treacher- 
ous idea  of  an  independent  republic  ever  entered  the 
minds  of  these  sensible  people.  Nature  and  fortune 
had  made  them  unequal  in  territory,  in  political 
liberty,  manners,  and  origin ; they  respected  nature 
and  the  work  of  ages.”  A writer  in  the  Christian 
Spectator  of  1832,  says,  “No  diversities  of  character 
and  state  are  greater  than  those  which  exist  in  this 
confederation.  It  comprises  people  of  three  distinct 
nations,  speaking  three  of  the  prominent  languages 
of  Europe,  — the  German  in  the  east,  the  French 
in  the  west,  and  the  Italian  in  the  south-east. 
They  are  divided  into  twenty-two  independent  states, 
each  of  which  has  a dress  and  manners,  in  some 
degree,  peculiar  to  itself,  and  a dialect  often  scarcely 
intelligent  to  those  around  it.  The  forms  of  govern- 
ment vary,  from  the  purest  democracy,  in  which 
every  male  of  the  canton  above  the  age  of  seventeen 
is  a member  of  the  body  which  makes  the  laws,  to 
the  most  rigorous  aristocracy,  in  which  the  offices  are 
confined  almost  entirely  to  the  families  of  patricians. 
The  nature  of  the  confederation  is  not  such  as  to 
impress  a uniform  character  on  elements  so  discor- 
dant. Their  diet  is  a mere  convention  of  ambassadors, 
loho  only  treat  ivith  each  other  according  to  the  strict 
tenor  of  their  instructions,  and  who  cannot  vote  for  a 
law  without  first  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  govern- 
ment which  sends  them.”  It  is  difficult,  but  not 
important,  to  reconcile  the  discrepances  of  these 

71 


562 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


54 


writers,  with  respect  to  the  number  of  the  members 
of  this  Union.  Perhaps  the  number  has  been  different 
at  different  times.  Some  members  may  have  been 
excluded,  or  withdrawn,  and  others  added.  All  these 
writers  agree,  however,  in  the  main  features  of  the 
Union ; and  show  that  it  consisted  of  numbers 
of  independent  states,  differing  from  one  another  in 
language,  religion,  laws,  forms  of  government,  man- 
ners and  customs,  united  together,  not  only  for  the 
purpose  of  resisting  foreign  aggression,  but  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  peace  with  one  another,  by 
an  equitable  and  amicable  settlement  of  all  disputes 
arising  between  any  two  or  more  members  of  the 
Union,  which  has  continued  for  more  than  500  years 
to  be  a blessing  to  the  framers  of  it  and  their  pos- 
terity. It  is  true  the  whirlwind  of  the  French  revo- 
lution, which  prostrated  every  thing  else  within  its 
vortex,  nearly  upset  this  gallant  bark  also,  so  that 
many,  with  J.  Mallet  Du  Pan,  thought  her  destroyed. 
But  the  storm  passed  over,  and  she  righted  again, 
by  the  weight  of  her  own  ballast,  and  she  now 
keeps  on  the  peaceful  tenor  of  her  way,  the  admiration 
of  the  world  and  a beautiful  monument  of  human 
wisdom.  I have  dwelt  the  longer  on  the  Helvetic 
Union,  because  I consider  the  civil  part  of  this  insti- 
tution — the  diet  and  the  court  of  judges  or  arbitrators 
— as  the  nearest  working  model  of  our  proposed 
Congress  and  Court  of  Nations  which  ever  existed. 
True,  it  is  imperfect,  like  all  other  human  devices, 
and  wants  that  correction,  which  the  increased  knowl- 
edge and  wisdom  of  the  present  times  can  give  it. 


55 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


563 


No  good  reason  can  be  given  why  a plan,  which  has 
worked  so  well  on  a small  scale,  may  not  be  extended, 
so  as  to  embrace  all  Christian  and  civilized  nations. 

7.  The  Great  Scheme  of  Henry  IV,  of  France, 
begun  in  1601,  here  requires  a passing  notice.  The 
real  object  of  Henry  is  uncertain,  — possibly  it  was 
defence  against  the  encroachments  of  Mahometan 
nations  on  Christendom, — probably  the  humbling  of 
the  house  of  Austria.  Whatever  were  his  motives, 
he  imagined  the  great  project  of  uniting  all  the 
nations  of  Europe  in  one  grand  confederated  republic 
of  fifteen  members  — six  hereditary  monarchies,  five 
elective  monarchies,  and  four  republics.  He  gained 
the  consent  of  Holland,  Hesse  Cassel,  Anhalt,  Hun- 
gary, Bohemia,  Lower  Austria,  several  provinces  and 
towns  in  Germany,  the  Swiss  cantons,  and  queen 
Elizabeth  of  England.  The  limits  of  this  dissertation 
do  not  allow  me  to  go  further  into  the  details  of  a 
plan,  which,  in  the  moral  state  of  the  world  when  it 
was  proposed,  never  could  have  been  accomplished  ; 
and  if  it  had  been,  the  condition  of  mankind,  probably, 
would  not  have  been  immediately  much  ameliorated ; 
for  they  might  have  lost  as  much  in  liberty  as  they  would 
have  gained  in  a peace  compelled  by  the  power  of  the 
sword  and  great  standing  armies,  always  dangerous 
to  liberty  and  the  favorite  instrument  of  tyrants. 
The  assassin  Ravaillac  put  an  end,  at  once,  to  the 
Great  Scheme  and  the  life  of  the  great  Henry,  in 
1610,  and  nothing  remains  of  the  Scheme,  but  its 
record  in  history.  All  that  the  friends  of  peace  would 
make  of  the  Great  Scheme  is,  to  show  that,  if  so  many 


564 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


56 


nations  could  be  induced  to  embrace  a plan  so 
complicated,  cumbersome,  and  expensive ; we  have 
abundant  reason  to  believe,  that  a plan  so  simple, 
easy,  and  cheap  as  that  which  we  propose,  would  at 
once  be  adopted  by  Christian  nations,  if  once  proposed 
by  some  leading  power. 

8.  The  Holy  Alliance  is  the  next  thing  of  the  kind 
which  claims  our  attention.  An  extraordinary  instru- 
ment, of  three  short  articles,  dated  at  Paris,  September, 
1815,  was  signed  and  sealed  by  Francis,  emperor  of 
Austria,  Frederic  William,  king  of  Prussia,  and  Alex- 
ander, emperor  of  Russia.  The  three  articles  barely 
state,  for  substance,  that  the  high  contracting  parties 
solemnly  pledge  themselves  to  behave  like  brethren 
in  their  future  intercourse  with  one  another,  to  assist 
each  other,  and  to  be  fathers  to  their  subjects.  They 
acknowledge  God  as  the  only  rightful  sovereign,  and 
that  the  world  “has  in  reality  no  other  sovereign  than 
Him.”  They  commend  the  principles  of  the  Christian 
religion  to  their  subjects ; and  they  offer  to  receive 
other  nations  professing  like  principles  into  their 
alliance.  The  emperor  Alexander  issued  a manifesto, 
on  the  Christmas  following,  in  which  he  ordered  the 
articles  of  the  Alliance  to  be  read  in  all  the  churches 
in  Russia.  In  that  manifesto,  he  promised  to  adopt 
“ the  principle  derived  from  the  words  and  religion  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  .lesus  Christ,  who  teaches 
mankind  to  live  as  brethren,  not  in  hatred  and  strife, 
but  in  peace  and  love.”  It  does  not  appear,  that  any 
other  of  the  nations,  except  the  abovementioned,  have 
joined  the  Holy  Alliance,  though  the  kings  of  Eng- 


57 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


565 


land  and  France  sent  ministers  to  them,  not,  however, 
as  sovereigns,  but  as  individuals.  It  was  said,  that 
there  was  a constitutional  objection  to  Great  Britain’s 
joining  the  Alliance,  as  mentioned  in  the  succeeding 
note.  It  has  been  looked  on  with  jealousy  by  the 
free  people  of  other  countries,  as  a conspiracy  of  kings 
against  the  liberty  of  their  subjects ; but  I have  no 
doubt  that  Alexander,  who  was  the  father  and  chief 
promoter  of  the  enterprise,  meant  better  things.  His 
premature  death,  together  with  this  jealousy,  was 
probably  the  cause  why  the  Holy  Alliance  came  to 
nothing.*  From  what  has  appeared  in  some  English 
periodicals,  it  is  probable,  that  the  plan  of  the  Holy 
Alliance  was  first  suggested  to  Alexander,  when  he 
was  in  London,  by  an  English  lady. 

9.  The  Congress  of  Panama  is  the  last  thing  of 


* The  following  extract  of  a letter  from  ex-president  Adams  to  the 
author,  shows  his  opinion  of  the  Holy  Alliance : 

“The  Holy  Alliance  itself  was  a tribute  from  the  mightiest  men  of 
the  European  world  to  the  purity  of  your  principles  and  the  practica- 
bility of  your  system  for  the  general  preservation  of  peace.  The 
poisonous  ingredient  in  that  league  was  the  unlimited  sovereignty  of 
tire  parties  to  it.  The  league  was  autocratic,  and  so  peculiar  was  this 
feature  in  its  composition,  that  the  prince  regent  of  Great  Britain, 
when  invited  to  become  a party  to  it,  because  the  constitution  of  that 
country  did  not  recognize  treaties  as  national,  under  the  personal  sig- 
nature of  the  monarch,  [declined.]  The  professed  principles  of  the 
Holy  Alliance  were  the  perpetual  preservation  of  peace,  and  the  sove- 
reigns who  signed  the  treaty,  declared  that  they  considered  the  Christian 
principles  of  benevolence,  mutual  forbearance  and  charity,  as  obligatory 
upon  them  as  sovereigns  equally  as  upon  individuals.  But  they  bound 
themselves  to  support  each  otlier  against  all  wrong-doers  (they  them- 
selves to  be  the  judges  of  the  wrong),  not  only  of  foreigners,  but  of 
their  own  subjects.” 


566 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


58 


the  kind  of  which  I propose  to  give  an  account,  and, 
as  it  is  an  event  of  great  importance  to  us,  as  an 
attempt  at  something  more  like  the  very  plan  which 
has  always  been  the  object  of  the  friends  of  peace 
than  any  of  the  preceding ; and  as  it  is  but  little  known 
or  understood,  either  in  America  or  Europe,  I shall 
depart  from  the  plan  hitherto  pursued  in  this  chapter, 
of  devoting  but  one  section  to  each  of  the  past 
attempts  at  an  approximation  to  a Congress  of 
Nations.  I spent  a part  of  last  winter  (1838-9)  at 
Washington,  principally  in  order  to  collect  facts  and 
documents  on  this  and  other  subjects  interesting  to 
the  cause  of  peace.  All  the  documents  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  were  politely  laid  open  to  me,  and 
I was  much  assisted  by  the  urbanity  and  intelligence 
of  the  gentleman  who  has  the  charge  of  them.  The 
following  extracts  were  made  from  those  documents. 

10.  President  Adams,  in  his  message  to  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  dated  December  6,  1825,  thus 
notices  the  Congress  of  Panama  and  the  South 
American  states:  “Among  the  measures  which  have 
been  suggested  to  them,  by  the  new  relations  to  one 
another,  resulting  from  the  recent  changes  in  their 
condition,  is  that  of  assembling,  at  the  isthmus  of 
Panama,  a congress,  at  which  each  of  them  shall  be 
represented,  to  deliberate  on  objects  important  to  the 
welfare  of  them  all.  The  republics  of  Colombia,  of 
Mexico,  and  of  Central  America  have  already  deputed 
plenipotentiaries  to  such  a meeting,  and  they  have 
invited  the  United  States  to  be  also  represented  there 
by  their  ministers.  The  invitation  has  been  accepted. 


59 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


567 


and  ministers  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  will 
be  commissioned  to  attend  at  those  deliberations,  and 
to  take  part  in  them,  so  far  as  can  be  compatible  with 
that  neutrality,  from  which  it  is  neither  the  intention, 
nor  the  desire,  of  the  other  American  states  that  we 
should  depart.” 

11.  On  March  7,  1826,  President  Adams  sent  a 
special  message  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  in 
answer  to  their  requirement,  from  which  the  following 
facts  and  observations  are  obtained.  It  appears  that 
before  instructions  had  been  given  to  our  ministers  to 
Panama,  treaties  had  been  entered  into  by  the  repub- 
lics of  South  America.  In  this  message,  Mr.  Adams 
observes,  “In  the  intercourse  between  nations,  temper 
is  a minister,  perhaps  more  powerful  than  talent. 
Nothing  was  ever  lost  by  kind  treatment.  Nothing 
can  be  gained  by  sullen  repulses  and  aspiring  preten- 
sions.” “ Objects  of  the  highest  importance,  not 
only  to  the  future  welfare  of  the  whole  human  race, 
but  bearing  directly  on  the  special  interests  of  this 
Union,  will  engage  the  deliberations  of  the  Congress 
of  Panama,  whether  we  are  represented  there  or  not. 
Others,  if  we  are  represented,  may  be  offered  by  our 
plenipotentiaries  for  consideration,  having  in  view  both 
these  great  results — our  own  interests  and  the 
improvement  of  the  condition  of  man  upon  earth.  It 
may  be  that,  in  the  lapse  of  many  centuries,  no  other 
opportunity  so  favorable  will  be  presented  to  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  to  subserve  the 
benevolent  purposes  of  Divine  Providence,  to  dispense 
the  promised  blessings  of  the  Redeemer  of  mankind, 


568 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


60 


to  promote  the  prevalence,  in  future  ages,  of  peace  on 
earth  and  good-will  to  man,  as  will  now  be  placed  in 
their  power  by  participating  in  the  deliberations  of 
this  congress.” 

12.  The  President  further  adds,  “It  will  be  in  the 
recollection  of  the  House  that,  immediately  after  the 
war  of  our  independence,  a measure,  closely  analogous 
to  this  Congress  of  Panama,  was  adopted  by  the 
Congress  of  our  confederation,  and  for  purposes  of 
precisely  the  same  character.  Three  commissioners, 
wdth  plenipotentiary  powers,  were  appointed,  to  nego- 
tiate treaties  of  amity,  navigation,  and  commerce  with 
all  the  principal  powers  of  Europe.  They  met  and 
resided  about  one  year,  for  that  purpose,  at  Paris ; 
and  the  result  of  their  negotiations,  at  that  time,  was 
the  first  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Prussia 
— remarkable  in  the  diplomatic  annals  of  the  world, 
and  precious  as  a monument  of  the  principles  in  rela- 
tion to  commerce  and  maritime  warfare,  with  which 
our  country  entered  into  her  career  as  a member  of  the 
great  family  of  independent  nations.  This  treaty,  pre- 
pared in  conformity  with  the  instructions  of  the  Amer- 
ican plenipotentiaries,  consecrated  three  fundamental 
principles  of  foreign  intercourse,  which  the  Congress 
of  that  period  were  desirous  of  establishing.  First, 
equal  reciprocity  and  the  mutual  stipulation  of  the 
privileges  of  the  most  favored  nation  in  the  commercial 
exchanges  of  peace  ; secondly,  the  abolition  of  private 
tear  on  the  ocean ; and,  thirdly,  restrictions  favorable  to 
neutral  commerce  upon  belligerent  practices  icitli  regard 
to  contraband  of  ivar  and  blockades”  “ They  were 


61  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  569 

able  to  obtain  from  one  great  and  philosophical, 
though  absolute,  sovereign  of  Europe  [Frederick  III, 
of  Prussia]  an  assent  to  their  liberal  and  enlightened 
principles.” 

13.  Speaking  of  the  republics  of  South  America, 
the  President  adds,  “ The  only  causes  of  dissension 
between  us  and  them  which  ever  have  arisen,  origi- 
nated in  those  never-failing  fountains  of  discord  and 
irritation,  discriminations  of  commercial  favor  to  other 
countries,  licentious  privateers,  and  paper  blockades” 
He  further  adds,  “ If  it  be  true,  that  the  noblest  treaty 
of  peace  ever  mentioned  in  history,  is  that  by  which 
the  Carthaginians  were  bound  to  abolish  the  practice  of 
sacrificing  their  own  children  because  it  teas  stipulated 
in  favor  of  human  nature,  I cannot  exaggerate  to 
myself  the  unfading  glory,  with  which  these  United 
States  will  go  forth  in  the  memory  of  future  ages,  if 
by  their  friendly  counsel,  by  their  moral  influence,  by 
the  power  of  argument  and  persuasion  alone,  they 
can  prevail  upon  the  American  nations  at  Panama  to 
stipulate  by  general  agreement  among  themselves, 
and  so  far  as  any  of  them  may  be  concerned,  the 
perpetual  abolition  of  private  war  upon  the  ocean. 
And  if  we  cannot  yet  flatter  ourselves,  that  this  can 
be  accomplished,  as  advances  toward  it,  the  establish- 
ment of  the  principle,  that  the  friendly  flag  shall  cover 
the  cargo,  the  curhdlment  of  the  contraband  of  war,  and 
the  proscription  of  fictitious  paper  blockades  ; engage- 
ments, which  we  may  reasonably  hope  will  not  prove 
impracticable,  will,  if  successfully  inculcated,  redound 
proportionably  to  our  honor,  and  drain  the  fountain 


72 


570 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


62 


of  many  a future,  sanguinary  war.”  The  President 
closed  his  message  with  the  following  remarks : 
“ That  the  Congress  of  Panama  will  accomplish  all, 
or  even  any  of  the  transcendent  benefits  to  the  human 
race  which  warmed  the  conception  of  its  first  purpose, 
it  is  perhaps  indulging  too  sanguine  a forecast  of 
events  to  promise.  It  is  in  its  nature  speculative  and 
experimental.  The  blessings  of  heaven  may  tmm  it 
to  the  account  of  human  improvement.  Accidents 
unforeseen  and  mischances  not  to  be  anticipated  may 
baffle  all  its  high  purposes  and  disappoint  its  fairest 
expectations.  But  the  design  is  great.  It  looks  to 
the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  man.” 

14.  Accompanying  this  message  was  a communi- 
cation from  Henry  Clay,  Secretary  of  State,  giving 
an  account  of  the  first  intimation,  which  was  made 
to  him,  of  the  proposed  Congress  of  Panama,  which 
intimation  was  made  during  the  preceding  spring, 
in  a conversation  with  the  ministers  of  Colombia 
and  Mexico  on  the  same  day.  Don  Jose  Maria 
Salazar,  minister  from  Colombia,  wrote  a letter 
to  Mr.  Clay,  under  date  of  November  2,  1825, 
in  which  he  reminds  him  of  a previous  conversation 
on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  Congress,  and  Mr. 
Clay’s  intimation  that,  if  the  United  States  were 
formally  invited,  they  would  send  a delegate  to  it. 
This  letter  is  intended  to  be  the  formal  invitation,  at 
the  same  time  informing  Mr.  Clay  that  the  “minister 
from  Mexico  will  present  the  same  on  the  part  of  his 
government;  and  that  the  minister  from  Guatemala 
has  just  received  similar  instructions  from  his  govern- 
ment.” Don  Pablo  Obregen,  the  minister  from 


63 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


571 


Mexico,  afterwards  extended  a similar  formal  invita- 
tion, in  which  he  states,  that  the  Congress  was  to 
assemble  at  Panama,  and  that  “representatives  from 
Colombia,  Peru,  Guatemala,  and  Mexico  will  have 
arrived  at  the  date  of  this  letter,”  (Nov.  3,  1825.) 
Don  Antonio  Jose  Cahar,  minister  from  the  govern- 
ment of  Central  America,  in  a letter  to  Mr.  Clay,  of 
near  the  same  date,  joins  in  the  invitation,  and  states, 
that  his  government  had  formed  a convention  with 
Colombia  on  the  19th  of  March  preceding,  providing 
for  this  object. 

15.  On  the  abovementioned  message  of  the  Presi- 
dent, it  seems  Mr.  Crowninshield,  of  the  committee 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  offered  a report,  dated  March  26, 
1826,  of  which  the  following  are  some  of  the  features. 
1st.  The  report  replies  to  the  objection  that  the 
proposed  Congress  is  unconstitutional,  and  plainly 
shows  its  constitutionality.  2d.  It  replies  to  the 
objection,  “that  all  its  objects  could  be  attained  by 
separate  negotiation  with  the  several  states,”  and 
thus  answers  that  objection.  “It  is  questionable 
whether  separate  and  disconnected  negotiations 
between  states,  geographically  so  remote  and  in 
various  respects  politically  different  from  each  other, 
could  be  brought  to  the  same  harmonious  and  sys- 
tematic result  as  a discussion  in  an  assembly  of 
diplomatic  agents,  promptly  communicating  with  each 
other  information,  counsel,  and  argument.”  Another 
objection  answered  is,  that  of  an  “ entangling  alliance.” 
It  was  shown,  that  there  is  no  more  danger  in  an 
alliance  with  all  the  nations  together,  than  in  an 


572 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


64 


alliance  with  each  separately,  especially  when  it  is 
understood,  that  no  act  of  our  ministers  at  the  Con- 
gress would  be  binding,  until  ratified  by  our  govern- 
ment. Another  objection  answered  in  the  report  is, 
that  the  proposed  Congress  is  unprecedented.  But 
there  have  been  many  congresses  of  a like  nature  in 
Europe,  and  if  this  objection  ever  had  any  force,  it  is 
now  void.  The  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution 
of  the  United  States  was  equally  unprecedented. 

16.  It  would  be  very  interesting,  to  insert  the  whole 
of  this  very  able  report.  Almost  all  the  arguments, 
used  to  support  the  policy  of  sending  representatives 
to  the  Congress  of  Panama,  would  apply  to  the  case 
of  a Congress  of  Nations ; while  some  objections 
which  appeared  specious,  when  urged  against  the 
Congress  of  Panama,  are  of  no  force  when  urged 
against  a general  Congress  of  Nations.  While  this 
report  was  under  consideration  in  the  House,  several 
resolutions,  hostile  to  it,  were  introduced,  but  their 
aim  seemed  to  be  chiefly  directed  against  any  jooMca/ 
connection ; but  to  a representative  in  a diplomatic 
character,  there  seemed  to  be  no  forcible  objection. 

1 7.  Brevity  compels  me  barely  to  notice  a few  facts 
and  dates  of  importance,  like  the  following.  The 
emperor  of  Brazil  appointed  a plenipotentiary  to 
attend  the  Congress  of  Panama,  by  a decree  dated 
January  25,  1826.  On  March  26,  1826,  President 
Adams  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  Congress 
the  propriety  of  making  the  appropriation  necessary 
to  carry  into  effect  the  Congress  of  Panama.  The 
commissions  of  the  ministers  from  the  United  States 


65 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


573 


to  the  Congress  of  Panama,  are  dated  March  14, 
1826.  Mr.  Anderson,  one  of  our  ministers  left 
Bogota,  to  repair  to  Panama,  June  12,  1826.  Mr. 
Sargeant,  our  other  minister,  commenced  his  legation 
on  the  24th  of  October  of  the  same  year.  The 
Congress  of  Panama  was  organized  22d  of  June, 
1826.  The  session  was  a short  one,  on  account  of 
the  sickliness  of  the  climate  of  Panama,  most  of  the 
delegates  being  affected  with  it ; and  it  was  adjourned 
to  meet  at  Tacubaya,  near  the  city  of  Mexico,  July 
15th,  of  the  following  year.  An  agent  was  sent  by  the 
governments  of  Great  Britain,  of  France,  and  of  the 
Netherlands,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  either  arrived 
in  time  to  be  present  at  the  first  congress.  Neither 
of  the  envoys  from  the  United  States  arrived  in  time 
for  the  first  session.  The  only  members  represented 
were  Peru,  Mexico,  Central  America,  and  Colombia. 
Plenipotentiaries  were  expected  from  Chili,  but  there 
was  not  time  for  their  appointment  and  arrival. 

18.  One  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed  at  Panama 
was,  the  right  of  a civilized  nation  so  to  occupy  un- 
civilized countries,  by  colonies,  as  to  exclude  others. 
One  object  of  our  sending  commissioners  to  Panama 
was  to  secure  to  our  citizens  their  religious  rights  in 
the  various  countries  of  South  America.  A similar 
subject  might,  perhaps,  engage  the  attention  of  a 
Congress  of  Nations.  The  Colombian  minister  at 
Washington,  in  one  of  his  communications  to  our 
government,  says,  “At  Panama,  the  best  and  most 
opportune  occasion  is  offered  to  the  United  States,  to 
fix  some  principles  of  international  law,  the  unsettled 


574 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


66 


state  ofiohich  has  done  much  evil  to  humanity.”  Anoth- 
er thing  proposed  by  him  was  a treaty  offensive  and 
defensive  against  the  aggressions  of  Spain.  This, 
after  all,  perhaps  was  the  chief  object  of  the  South 
American  republics  for  calling  the  Congress  ; but  this, 
of  course,  the  United  States  would  have  nothing  to 
do  with,  having  always  adopted  a neutral  policy. 
The  rights  of  neutrals,  the  suppression  of  the  African 
slave  trade,  and  the  independence  of  Hayti,  were 
among  the  other  objects  proposed,  perhaps  for  a lure, 
to  our  government. 

19.  As  no  delegates  had  arrived  from  any  foreign 
nation,  in  time  to  take  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the 
first  session  of  the  Congress,  none  of  those  things  of 
general  interest  to  the  civilized  world  at  large  were 
agitated,  but  they  only  busied  themselves  with  South 
American  concerns,  perhaps  from  a conviction,  that 
it  would  be  useless  to  discuss  topics  of  general 
interest,  in  so  small  a Congress.  The  business  done 
was,  “ 1st.  A treaty  of  union,  league,  and  perpetual 
confederation,  between  the  four  American  states 
represented  at  the  Congress,  to  which  the  other 
powers  of  America  might  accede  within  a year.  2d. 
A convention  for  the  renewal  of  the  great  assembly 
annually  in  time  of  war,  and  tri-annually  in  time  of 
peace.  3d.  A convention  which  fixes  the  contingent 
which  each  confederate  should  contribute  for  the 
common  defence.  4th.  An  arrangement  concerning 
the  employment  and  direction  of  those  contingents. 
5th.  Divers  declarations,  that  the  treaties  which 
Colombia  had  formerly  concluded  with  the  United 


67 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


575 


Mexican  States,  Central  America,  and  Peru,  should 
be  included  in  those  treaties  with  certain  reserva- 
tions.” 

20.  This  is  all  that  was  done  at  the  Congress  of 
Panama,  and  probably  none  of  it  would  have  been 
done  in  that  Congress,  had  the  delegates  appointed 
by  the  other  powers  arrived  in  time  to  take  a part  in 
the  discussions.  But  these  delegates  from  the  South 
American  states,  finding  themselves  alone,  did  not 
venture  on  the  discussion  of  those  topics  Avhich  were 
proposed  by  those  states  when  they  invited  other 
powers  to  join  them  in  a Congress  of  Nations  ; and 
they  acted  only  on  those  which  were  peculiarly 
interesting  to  themselves,  and  which  would  not  have 
been  thought  proper  subjects  of  discussion  in  a 
congress  of  delegates  from  the  principal  powers  of 
Christendom.  What  Avere  some  of  the  principal 
objects  aimed  at  by  the  Congress  of  Panama  may  be 
learned  from  the  introductory  or,  probably,  inaugural 
speech  of  the  minister  from  Peru — for  which  see 
Appendix,  No.  1. 

21.  In  a conversation  which  I held  Avith  Mr.  Sar- 
geant,  at  Washington,  January  29,  1839,  I learned, 
that  he  Avent  to  Tacubaya,  at  the  time  appointed,  and 
found  there  but  twm  or  three  delegates, — Avhether 
Mr.  Anderson  was  one  of  them  I do  not  know,  or 
whether  he  attended  any  meeting  of  the  Congress, 
— but  no  congress  was  organized  at  Tacubaya,  and 
there  the  thing  ended.  I did  not  find  Mr.  Sargeant 
very  communicative — perhaps  on  account  of  ill  health 
and  a pressing  engagement  on  his  hands,  Avhich 


576 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


68 


required  his  immediate  attention.  I had  no  opportu- 
nity to  call  on  him  afterward.  Diligent  search  was 
made,  among  the  congressional  documents,  for  a 
report  from  the  delegation  to  Panama,  but  it  was  not 
found.  I have  since  written  to  Mr.  Sargeant  for  a 
copy  of  such  a report,  but  have  received  no  answer. 
Probably  such  a report  was  never  made. 

22.  The  causes  of  the  failure  of  the  Congress  of 
Panama,  and  the  reasons  why  it  did  not  become  a 
Congress  of  Nations,  deserve  a passing  notice.  1st. 
The  South  Americans  were  not  the  people  to  com- 
mence such  a congress — just  emerged  as  they  were 
from  a state  of  semi-barbarism  and  slavery,  they 
knew  little,  or  nothing,  of  the  principles  of  interna- 
tional law  — and,  besides  this,  they  were  more  intent 
on  securing  their  own  independence  from  Spain,  than 
establishing  a system  of  pacific  relations  with  all  other 
nations.  They  were,  themselves,  at  war  at  the  time, 
and  could  attend  to  nothing  but  war.  The  govern- 
ment, that  invites  a Congress  of  Nations,  must  be  in 
perfect  peace  and  harmony  with  all  other  governments. 
2d.  Panama  was  not  the  place  for  such  a congress,  far 
removed  as  it  was  from  intercourse  with  the  rest  of  the 
world,  and  very  sickly.  Could  the  Congress  have  been 
held  together  until  our  ambassadors  and  the  delegates 
from  other  enlightened  states  could  have  met  with 
them,  something  might,  nevertheless,  have  been  done ; 
but,  interrupted  by  an  endemical  sickness,  they  scat- 
tered, never  again  to  be  united.  Had  President 
Adams,  when  invited  to  attend  to  this  subject,  only 
requested,  that  the  proposed  congress  should  be  held 


69  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  577 

at  Washington  or  Philadelphia,  the  South  American 
ministers  could  not  have  objected,  many  more  dele- 
gates would  have  been  sent  by  the  powers  of  Europe, 
a Congress  of  Nations  would  have  commenced,  and 
a new  and  happy  era  would  have  dawned  on  the 
world.  3d.  The  character  of  Bolivar,  under  whose 
auspices  the  congress  was  called,  was  another  obsta- 
cle to  its  success.  More  intent  on  extending  his  own 
power  than  on  preserving  peace,  he  found  that  the 
congress  would  be  an  obstacle  to  his  ambitious 
designs,  and  he  therefore  withdrew  his  countenance 
from  it.  I am  confirmed  in  this  opinion,  by  a letter 
from  ex-president  Adams  to  me,  dated  September 
14,  1838,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract;  “The 
proposition  [for  a congress  of  the  South  American 
nations]  originated,  I believe,  with  the  late  Doctor 
William  Thornton,  of  Washington;  who  addressed  a 
memoir,  recommending  a congress  of  the  American 
republics,  to  a distinguished  citizen  of  Venezuela, 
through  whom  it  was  communicated  to  Bolivar,  the 
Napoleon  of  this  hemisphere.  Bolivar  had  no  more 
honest  regard  for  peace  or  human  liberty  than  had 
his  prototype  in  Europe,  but  he  had  liberated,  con- 
quered, and  constituted  the  republic  of  Colombia — ■ 
he  was  pursuing  his  conquests  into  Peru,  and  consti- 
tuting another  mock  republic  there,  and  was  wearing 
himself  out  in  projects  of  investing  his  brow  with  an 
imperial  crown,  sparkling  before  his  eyes,  like  the 
dagger  before  the  vision  of  Macbeth.  Bolivar 
thought  that  a Congress  of  Nations  at  Panama  might 
serve  to  promote  some  of  his  own  ambitious  purposes. 


73 


578 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


70 


and  he  made  the  proposition.  The  other  emancipated 
colonies,  however,  and  especially  the  Mexicans,  were 
jealous  of  his  designs,  and  had  counter  projects  of 
their  own.” 

23.  The  inference  to  be  deduced  from  this  abortive 
attempt  at  a Congress  of  Nations  is,  that  the  govern- 
ments of  Christendom  are  willing  to  send  delegates 
to  any  such  Congress,  wdienever  it  shall  be  called  hy 
a respectable  state,  well  established  in  its  own  govern- 
ment, if  called  in  a time  of  peace,  to  meet  at  a proper 
place.  That  this  attempt  at  a Congress  of  Nations, 
or  even  a dozen  more,  should  prove  abortive  on 
account  of  defects  in  their  machinery  or  materials, 
ought  not  to  discourage  us,  any  more  than  the  dozen 
incipient  attempts  at  a steam-boat,  which  proved 
abortive  for  similar  reasons,  should  have  discouraged 
Fulton.  Every  failure  throws  new  light  on  this  sub- 
ject, which  is  founded  in  the  principles  of  truth  and 
equity.  Some  monarch,  president,  or  statesman  — 
some  moral  Fulton,  as  great  in  ethics  as  he  was  in 
physics,  will  yet  arise,  and  complete  this  great  moral 
machine,  so  as  to  make  it  practically  useful,  but 
improvable  by  coming  generations.  Before  the  fame 
of  such  a man,  your  Cmsars,  Alexanders,  and  Napo- 
leons will  hide  their  diminished  heads,  as  the  twinkling 
stars  of  night  fade  away  before  the  glory  of  the  full- 
orbed  king  of  day.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  first 
intimation  of  the  last  two  abortive  attempts  at  a 
Congress  of  Nations,  — abortive  because  deficient  in 
constitution  and  materials, — should  have  been  sug- 
gested by  a private  individual. 


71 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


579 


24.  ]My  7'eniarks  on  the  past  attempts  at  something 
like  a Congress  a7id  Cou7't  of  JYatmis,  mentioned  in  this 
chapter,  must  be  few.  It  is  obvious  to  the  reader  ot 
history,  that  I have  selected  but  few  out  of  the  great 
number  of  these  attempts,  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times ; but  I have  taken  those  with  which  the  general 
reader  is  best  acquainted,  except  the  congress  of 
Panama,  which  is  comparatively  recent  and  unknown, 
and  in  which  our  country  was  much  interested ; and, 
therefore,  it  required  a more  extended  development. 
It  is  equally  obvious,  that  from  the  earliest  ages,  man- 
kind have  been  desirous  of  something  like  the 
proposed  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations,  especially 
in  communities  of  small  independent  states,  when, 
from  the  contiguity  of  the  parties,  such  a plan  was 
the  more  easy  to  be  carried  into  effect,  and  more 
necessary  to  their  safety,  peace  and  happiness.  Many 
of  these  attempts  were  eminently  successful;  and 
though  they  partook  of  the  instability  of  all  sublunary 
things ; while  they  did  continue,  they  were  a great 
blessing  to  the  parties  concerned,  and  often  to 
surrounding  nations. 

25.  There  are  some  features  in  these  past  attempts, 
which  would  be  retained  by  us,  as  essential  to  our 
plan;  and  some  as  decidedly  rejected.  We  should 
adopt  the  pacific  part  of  their  plans,  which  was  to 
secure  peace  and  equity  among  themselves,  though  it 
was  but  a secondary  consideration  to  them,  as  neces- 
sary to  their  existence  as  a confederation.  With  us, 
this  pacific  principle  is  the  chief  motive.  The  other 
has  no  weight  at  all.  Ought  we  not  to  suppose,  that 


580 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


72 


in  this  enlightened  age  of  the  world,  this  chief  motive 
would  be  suthcient  to  induce  Christian  nations  to 
make  the  sate  and  cheap  attempt,  when  the  good  to 
be  obtained  by  success  is  commensurate  only  with 
the  extent  and  duration  of  the  world  1 Is  it  too  much 
to  hope  that,  in  this  age  of  reason  and  philanthropy, 
the  preservation  of  peace,  equity,  and  justice,  and  the 
avoidance  of  all  the  sins  and  horrors  of  war  may  be 
a sufficient  motive  to  induce  Christian  nations  to  try 
the  experiment  recommended  in  these  Essays  ? Our 
plan  would  not  essentially  change  the  existing  relations 
of  nations  towards  each  other  with  respect  to  peace 
and  war,  by  any  direct  influence  on  the  subject.  It 
is  only  a general  treaty  entered  into,  by  all  the  nations 
with  each,  and  by  each  nation  with  all,  that  henceforth 
they  w'ill  endeavor  to  settle  their  controversies  with 
one  another  by  the  law  of  reason,  as  becomes  rational 
creatures,  and  not  by  the  law  of  violence  which 
becomes  only  brutes ; and  that  if  war  be  necessary 
in  the  nature  of  things,  and  men  will  fight,  they  shall 
mutually,  and  jointly,  and  severally  agree,  that  they 
will  abandon  some  of  the  most  barbarous  features  of 
war,  and  protect  the  peaceful ; and  that  they  will  seek 
those  things  which  make  for  the  peace  and  happiness 
of  mankind  at  large.  Therefore  our  plan  has  nothing 
to  do  with  physical  force  and  leagues  offensive  and 
defensive,  which  at  the  commencement  of  the  above- 
mentioned  councils,  leagues,  diets,  alliances,  and  con- 
gresses, sowed  the  seeds  of  their  dissolution  ; but  our 
plan  depends  entirely  on  the  influence  of  moral  power 
for  the  good  it  will  do  to  the  world,  but  it  retains  the 


73 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


581 


expectation  of  settling  the  principles  of  international 
law,  by  compact  and  agreement,  in  a general  treaty, 
to  which  the  nations  of  Christendom  will  be  parties ; 
and  it  also  retains  the  principle  and  practice  of  peace- 
ful mediation  between  contending  factions  or  nations, 
and  the  promotion  of  every  plan  for  bettering  the 
moral,  intellectual,  and  physical  condition  of  man. 

26.  In  the  foregoing  plans,  the  number  of  delegates 
from  each  of  the  allied  nations  has  been  different  at 
different  unions.  The  best  way,  I think,  is  to  allow 
of  as  many  delegates  to  the  Congress  of  Nations  as 
any  government  would  choose  to  send,  but  each 
delegation  to  be  considered  as  a separate  college, 
entitled  to  but  one  vote,  and  to  but  one  turn  to  speak 
in  the  discussions,  so  as  to  be  considered  as  but 
one  person,  and  if  any  college  should  be  equally 
divided  on  any  question,  of  course  their  vote  would 
be  neutralized.  To  avoid  this  difficulty,  the  number 
in  each  college  might  be  an  odd  one. 


582 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


74 


CHAPTER  IX. 


SOJIE  ACCOUNT  OF  ATTEMPTS  WHICH  HAVE  BEEN  MADE  BY  PRIVATE 
INDIVIDUALS  AND  PEACE  SOCIETIES  TO  CALL  THE  ATTEN- 
TION OF  THE  PUBLIC  TO  THE  SUBJECT  OF  A 
CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


1.  William  Penn’s  Essay — 2.  Essay  of  St.  Pierre — 3.  Monthly  Maga- 
zine— 4.  London  Peace  Society — 5.  Massachusetts  Peace  Society- — 
6.  American  Peace  Society — 7.  Premiums  offered — 8.  First  move- 
ments in  Massachusetts — 9.  First  petition  to  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts — 10.  Second  petition  to  the  same— 11.  Petitions  to 
Congress — 12.  Action  on  them — 13.  Remarks  on  Mr.  Legare’s  re- 
port— 14.  Further  petitions  to  Congress — 1.5.  Action  in  Switzerland. 


1.  William  Penn  in  1693  published  an  “Essay 
on  the  present  and  future  peace  of  Europe,”  in  which 
he  urged  the  plan  of  a general  congress  for  the  settle- 
ment of  international  disputes,  and  referring  to  the 
“great  design”  of  Henry  IV,  he  says:  “His  exam- 
ple tells  us  that  this  is  fit  to  be  done.  Sir  William 
Temple’s  history  of  the  United  Provinces  shows,  by 
a surpassing  instance,  that  it  may  be  done,  and  Eu- 
rope, by  her  incomparable  miseries,  that  it  ought  to 
be  done.'”  * I have  read  the  Essay.  It  is  chiefly 
remarkable  for  having  been  the  first  thing  of  the 
kind  in  modern  times. 

2.  Charles  Castel  Irene  de  Saint  Pierre,  who  died 
in  the  year  1743,  and  who  must  be  distinguished 


* Herald  of  Peace. 


75 


CONGRESS  OE  NATIONS. 


583 


from  the  author  of  the  Studies  of  Nature,  who  was 
his  nephew,  seems  to  have  been  the  author  of  the 
next  published  dissertation  on  a Congress  of  Nations. 
There  is  nothing  left  of  this  Essay,  but  a review  of  it, 
which  is  published  among  the  works  of  John  James 
Rousseau.  St.  Pierre  was  the  originator  of  the  plan, 
but  Rousseau  seems  to  have  admired  it,  and  published 
this  review  with  remarks  of  his  own.  The  plan  of 
St.  Pierre  and  Rousseau  was  a confederation,  like  the 
Amphictyonic  Council,  the  Helvetic  Union,  &c.— a 
system  of  legislation  and  arbitration  enforced  by  arms. 
They  adopt  the  error  common  to  ancient  and  modern 
times,  that,  “It  is  necessary  that  no  considerable 
power  should  refuse.”  The  projector  makes  five 
articles  necessary  to  the  confederacy.  “By  the  first, 
the  contracting  sovereigns  should  establish  among 
themselves  a perpetual  and  inviolable  alliance,  appoint- 
ing plenipotentiaries  to  hold  a fixed  and  permanent 
diet,  or  congress,  in  a certain  place,  in  which  diet, 
all  the  differences  arising  between  the  contracting 
parties  shall  be  regulated  and  decided  by  way  of 
arbitration.”  The  other  four  articles  show  how  the 
decrees  of  the  diet  should  be  enforced  by  arms ; and 
undertakes  to  answer  some  objections.  The  author 
then  recapitulates  the  evils  attending  the  settlement  of 
national  controversies  by  war,  under  thirteen  heads, 
and  opposes  to  them  the  advantages  by  arbitration, 
under  eight  heads.  Both  the  evils  and  advantages 
are  too  obvious  to  need  particular  notice.  Saint 
Pierre  presented  his  scheme  to  all  the  monarchs  of 
Europe,  and  among  the  rest  to  Louis  XV,  of  France. 


584 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


76 


Cardinal  Fleury,  the  prime  minister,  pleasantly  told 
the  author,  that  “he  had  forgotten  one  preliminary 
article,  which  was  the  delegation  of  missionaries  to 
dispose  the  hearts  of  the  princes  of  Europe  to  submit 
to  such  a diet.”  The  peace  societies  must  furnish 
these  missionaries,  and  send  them  to  the  princes  in 
monarchical  governments,  and  to  the  people  in  mixed 
and  republican  governments.  Let  public  opinion  be 
on  our  side,  and  missionaries  will  not  be  wanting. 

3.  The  subject  of  a Congress  of  Nations  seems  to 
have  slept  in  forgetfulness  amid  the  thunders  of  the 
late  wars  in  Europe,  when  the  attention  of  mankind 
was  so  engrossed  with  plans  of  mutual  destruction, 
that  there  was  no  opportunity  for  the  “still  small 
voice”  of  peace  to  be  heard.  Yet  there  were  a few 
who  thought  on  the  evils  of  war,  and  sought  a remedy. 
In  the  London  “ Monthly  Magazine  ” of  July,  1811, 
appeared  an  anonymous  letter  to  the  editor,  from 
which  I make  the  following  extract : “ It  appears  to 
me,  that  if  the  powerful  at  the  head  of  different 
nations  would  seriously  turn  their  thoughts  to  the 
subject,  that  it  is  not  without  some  probability,  that 
a JYational  Court  of  Arhitration  might  be  established, 
to  which,  when  two  nations  disagree,  their  cause 
might  be  referred ; and  that  the  decision  of  this  court 
would  frequently,  if  not  always,  be  abided  by.  Do 
we  not  see,  Avhen  a difference  exists  between  two 
people  respecting  some  transaction  in  business,  that 
the  cause  is  referred  to  private  arbitration  and  the 
decision  abided  by  1 Why,  therefore,  would  it  be 
impossible  to  form  a national  court  of  arbitration  1 I 


77 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


585 


rather  compare  a court  of  this  sort  to  an  arbitration 
than  to  a court  of  justice ; for  in  an  arbitration,  the 
parties  choose  their  friends  to  be  settlers  of  the  dis- 
pute, which  is  not  the  case  when  people  go  to  law ; 
the  judge  and  jury,  perhaps,  are  all  unknown  to  the 
parties  differing.  Each  nation  might  send  one  or 
more  deputies  to  the  National  Court,  which  should, 
perhaps,  meet  at  different  places,  as  might  suit,  or 
have  one  permanent  place  of  assembling.”  “ P.  S. 
Was  there  ever  an  attempt  of  this  kind  acted  on?” 
These  few  thoughts  appear  to  be  very  crude.  The 
writer  does  not  seem  to  have  been  aware  of  the 
necessity  of  a Congress  of  Nations,  previous  to  a Court 
of  Nations,  to  organize  such  a court,  define  its  powers, 
and  prescribe  the  principles  on  which  it  should  judge ; 
nor  does  he  seem  to  be  aware,  that  if  “ each  nation 
send  one  or  more  deputies  to  the  National  Court,” 
it  would  be  impossible  and  improper  for  “ the  parties 
to  choose  their  friends, to  be  settlers  of  a dispute. 
This  writer  appears  to  be  ignorant,  that  any  one  else 
ever  thought  of  a Court  of  Nations ; and  I never  saw 
his  articles  until  I had  arrived  at  this  place  in  my 
Essay.  Could  people  be  brought  together  to  confer 
on  this  plan,  nine  out  of  ten  of  the  decent  people  of 
Christendom  would  agree  to  it,  as  soon  as  they 
understood  it. 

4.  The  London  Peace  Society  has  always  been 
friendly  to  the  plan  of  a Court  or  Congress  of  Nations, 
as  appears  by  the  following  extract  from  the  Herald 
of  Peace,  which  is  their  organ.  “The  Court  of 
Nations  is  the  end  of  the  operations  of  the  peace 

74 


586 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


78 


societies,”  but  it  has  never  taken  any  decided  action 
on  it,  until  lately.  The  Herald  of  Peace  for  July, 
1839,  contains  a petition  to  Parliament  on  the  subject 
of  a Congress  of  Nations,  which  was  presented  on  the 
12th  of  April  preceding,  by  Edward  Baines,  Esq., 
member  for  Leeds,  and  in  the  House  of  Lords  by  I 
know  not  who.  I mention  this  event  in  this  place  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  the  connection.  But  as  it 
is  best  to  observe  the  order  of  time  in  the  Appendix, 
I have  given  this  petition  the  place  of  No.  13. 

5.  There  is  nothing  in  the  publications  of  the 
Massachusetts  Peace  Society  which  favors  the  idea 
that  the  plan  for  a Congress  of  Nations  ever  engaged 
the  attention  of  the  Rev.  Noah  Worcester,  D.  D.,  the 
venerable  founder  of  that  institution,  and  the  only 
editor  of  “ Friend  of  Peace,”  the  organ  of  that  society, 
or  of  any  one  of  its  members ; nor  do  we  find  any 
mention  of  the  plan  in  the  publications  or  proceedings 
of  any  other  peace  society  in  America  prior  to  the 
organization  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

6.  The  American  Peace  Society  was  organized 
at  a meeting  commenced  on  the  8th  of  May,  1828, 
in  the  city  of  New  York.  The  following  is  an  extract 
from  the  circular  letter  accepted  at  that  time  by  the 
Society,  which  shows  that  a Congress  of  Nations  was 
a prominent  object  with  the  founders  of  it.  “We 
hope  to  increase  and  promote  the  practice  already 
begun,  of  submitting  national  differences  to  amicable 
discussion  and  arbitration,  and  finally  of  settling  all 
national  controversies  by  an  appeal  to  reason,  as 
becomes  rational  creatures,  and  not  by  physical  force. 


79  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  587 

as  is  worthy  only  of  brute  beasts,  and  this  shall  be 
done  by  a Congress  of  Christian  JYations,  whose 
decrees  shall  be  enforced  by  public  opinion,  that  rules 
the  world ; not  by  public  opinion  as  it  now  is,  but  by 
public  opinion  when  it  shall  be  enlightened  by  the 
rays  of  the  gospel  of  peace.”  * It  is  very  evident, 
that  the  notions  of  the  founders  of  the  American 
Peace  Society  were  on  this  subject  very  crude  and 
undigested,  when  they  sanctioned  and  pubhshed  this 
circular  letter.  It  has  been  by  constantly  thinking, 
writing  and  speaking,  on  this  subject,  for  eleven  years, 
that  their  ideas  have  got  to  be  more  mature ; and  they 
now  see  that  a distinction  ought  to  be  made  between 
a congress  of  ambassadors,  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
the  disputed  points  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  a court 
of  judges,  to  decide  cases  submitted  to  them  by  the 
mutual  consent  of  the  parties  concerned,  — in  other 
words,  a distinction  between  the  legislative  and  the 
judicial  power. 

7.  At  their  next  anniversary,  the  American  Peace 
Society  offered  a premium  of  thirty  dollars,  for  the 
best  dissertation  on  a Congress  of  Nations.  Only 
four  or  five  dissertations  were  handed  in,  and  all  of 
them  of  a very  ordinary  character.  One  of  them, 
however,  which  was  thought  rather  superior  to  the 
others,  with  the  consent  of  the  author,  was  published  in 
a double  number  of  the  Harbinger  of  Peace  for  January 
and  February,  1831,  and  is  believed  to  be  the  first  dis- 
sertation on  a Congress  of  Nations  ever  published  in 


Harbinger  of  Peace,  Vol.  I,  p.  10. 


588 


COJVGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


80 


America.  I have  made  copious  extracts  from  it,  in 
writing  this  Essay.  Subsequently  the  Society  offered 
fifty  dollars  for  the  best  dissertation  on  the  subject, 
but  with  no  better  success.  The  premium  was  too 
small;  but  the  funds  of  the  Society  did  not  allow 
them  to  increase  it.  The  subject  was  afterwards 
taken  up  by  two  gentlemen  of  New  York,  as  is 
related  in  the  preface  to  the  volume  of  Prize  Essays 
on  a Congress  of  Nations;  to  which  I refer  the 
reader. 

8.  At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Peace 
Society,  held  at  New  York,  May  11,  1830,  there  was 
laid  before  the  Society  a letter  from  J.  P.  Blanchard, 
Esq.,  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  Massachusetts 
Peace  Society,  enclosing  an  abbreviated  copy  of  a 
letter  to  him,  from  a gentleman  of  Boston,  not  a 
member  of  any  peace  society,  which  abbreviation  Mr. 
Blanchard  was  directed  by  the  Massachusetts  Peace 
Society,  to  transmit  to  the  American  Peace  Society. 
In  this  letter,  the  gentleman  informs  the  Massachusetts 
Peace  Society,  through  their  secretary,  that  he  had 
penned  an  instrument,  and  offered  it  for  signatures, 
not  to  the  members  of  the  peace  societies, — who 
might  have  been  supposed  to  have  already  expressed 
an  opinion  on  the  subject, — but  to  those  who  had  no 
connection  with  them.  The  following  is  a copy  of  the 
instrument:  “We  the  undersigned, convinced  of  the 
great  advantages  and  blessings  which  an  abolition  of 
war,  and  the  reference  of  all  international  disputes  to 
a Court  of  JYations,  would  confer  on  mankind,  heartily 
concur  in  recommending  a suitable  reference  of  this 


81 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


589 


subject,  by  the  peace  societies,  to  the  attention  of 
Congress,  as  soon  as  such  a reference  shall  be  found 
practicable  and  convenient.”  Nine  out  of  ten,  to 
whom  this  instrument  was  presented,  signed  it  without 
hesitation,  and  those  who  declined  signing,  generally 
expressed  their  approbation  of  it. 

9.  The  American  Peace  Society,  at  the  abovemen- 
tioned  annual  meeting,  approved  of  these  measures, 
and  directed  the  correspondence  to  be  published  in 
the  Harbinger  of  Peace,  which  was  done.*  They 
entered  warmly  into  the  measure,  and  struck  off  a 
circular  containing  the  proposal,  which  was  widely 
circulated  among  the  most  intelligent  and  influential 
characters  in  New  England,  and  it  was  found  that 
almost  every  one  to  whom  the  instrument  was  pre- 
sented signed  it,  amounting,  in  all,  to  several  thousands 
of  names,  besides  some,  which  from  inadvertence  or 
accident,  were  never  returned.  Considerable  time, 
however,  elapsed  before  the  friends  of  peace  thought 
themselves  authorized  to  solicit  the  aid  of  legislative 
action  — for  when  an  enterprise  of  this  kind  has  to 
be  carried  on  by  a few  individuals,  who  are  viewed 
by  the  bulk  of  the  community  as  good-natured  enthu- 
siasts, who  are  seeking  a great  and  good,  but  unat- 
tainable object,  and  where  the  ill  health  of  one  of 
them  causes  serious  embarrassment,  things  move 
slowly.  A small  obstacle  impedes  the  ascending 
wheel.  It  was  not  until  the  year  1835,  that  the  sub- 
ject was  brought  before  the  Legislature  of  the  State 


Harbinger  of  Peace,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  131,  and  seq. 


590  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  82 

of  Massachusetts — a State,  of  which  it  is  no  dispar- 
agement to  any  other  in  the  Union  to  say,  goes  before 
all  the  rest  in  every  good  work.  February  6,  of  this 
year,  a petition,*  praying  for  an  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  subject  of  a Congress  of  Nations,  signed  only 
by  Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.,  and  William  Ladd,  was 
presented  by  the  Hon.  Sidney  Willard  to  the  Senate, 
who  took  the  same  into  consideration,  and  referred 
it  to  a special  committee  of  three,  who  made  a very 
able  report,!  favorable  to  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners, 
accompanied  with  the  following  resolutions : 

“ Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature, 
some  mode  should  be  established  for  the  amicable  and 
final  adjustment  of  all  international  disputes,  instead 
of  resort  to  war.” 

^‘■Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  this  Common- 
wealth be  requested  to  communicate  a copy  of  the 
above  report  and  of  the  resolutions  annexed,  to  the 
Executive  of  each  of  the  States,  to  be  laid  before  the 
Legislature  thereof,  inviting  a cooperation  for  the 
advancement  of  the  object  in  view.” 

This  report,  with  the  resolutions  appended,  was 
adopted  by  the  Senate  by  a majority  of  19  to  5,  only  a 
very  little  having  been  said  against  it,  by  a gentleman, 
who,  needlessly,  acknowledged  that  he  had  never 
examined  the  subject.  Before  this  report  was  made 
and  adopted  by  the  Senate,  it  had  got  to  be  too  late 
in  the  session  to  carry  the  subject  before  the  House, 
and  nothing  more  was  done  on  it,  in  the  Legislature 


Appendix,  No.  2. 


t Appendix,  No.  3. 


83 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


591 


of  Massachusetts,  this  year.  The  next  year,  Mr. 
Thompson,  on  whose  perseverance  and  diligence  the 
cause  depended  in  a great  measure  for  success  with 
the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  was  confined  to 
his  house  by  sickness. 

10.  In  1837,  a petition  was  presented  to  the  Legis- 
lature of  Massachusetts,  signed  only  by  Mr.  Thomp- 
son,* and  another,  signed  by  the  President  and  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace 
Society.!  These  petitions  were  referred  to  a joint 
committee  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives, which  committee  made  a very  lengthy  and  able 
report,!  to  which  resolutions  were  appended  some- 
thing similar  to  those  appended  to  the  preceding 
report,  but  in  addition  calling  the  attention  of  the 
Executive  of  the  United  States  to  the  subject,  and 
recommending  “a  negotiation  with  such  other  govern- 
ments, as  in  its  wisdom  it  may  deem  proper,  with  a 
view  to  effect  so  important  an  arrangement.”  This 
report,  with  the  resolves  appended,  was  adopted  by  the 
Senate  by  a majority  of  35  to  5,  and  by  the  House, 
without  a dissenting  vote.  The  subject  was  subse- 
quently laid  before  the  Legislatures  of  Maine  and 
Vermont,  but  on  account  of  its  not  being  so  well 
understood  in  those  States  as  in  Massachusetts,  it  has 
been  deferred ; but  it  came  very  near  being  favorably 
received  by  the  Legislature  of  Vermont,  where  it  was 
lost  by  its  opponents  calling  party  spirit,  that  bane  of 
all  good,  to  their  aid. 


* Appendix,  No.  4.  f Appendix,  No.  5.  J Appendix,  No.  6. 


592  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  84 

11.  The  American  Peace  Society  was  only  waiting 
for  the  sanction  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
to  carry  the  subject  before  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  They  were,  however,  anticipated  by  the 
New  York  Peace  Society,  that  had  prepared  and  sent 
on  a very  able  petition*  to  Congress.  Instead  of 
getting  up  a new  and  separate  petition,  the  American 
Peace  Society  heartily  cooperated  with  their  brethren 
of  other  societies,  and  the  friends  of  peace  in  general, 
in  forwarding  copies  of  the  same  petition.  There 
were  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  six 
petitions  of  members  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society 
and  others,  sent  by  Origen  Bachelor,  signed  by  608 
persons ; one  from  the  American  Peace  Society  and 
others,  signed  by  William  Ladd  and  539  legal  voters 
in  the  State  of  Maine,  and  generally  men  of  the  first 
respectability;  one  from  Thomas  Hough,  and  143 
other  members  of  the  Vermont  Peace  Society ; one 
from  Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.,  and  135  members  of 
the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts;  in  all,  1427  names 
besides  those  sent  to  the  Senate,  and  one  signed  by 
most  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  bar  in  Augusta,  Hal- 
lowell,  and  Gardiner,  in  Maine,  and  probably  others, 
of  which  I have  no  information.  In  general,  more 
attention  was  paid  to  the  respectability,  than  to  the 
number,  of  subscribers. 

12.  On  the  reception  of  these  petitions  by  the 
House  of  Representatives,  Mr.  Adams,  in  a letter  to 
the  author,  remarks,  “ On  the  22d  of  March  last,  I 


Appendix,  No.  7. 


85  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  593 

received  your  memorial  signed  by  539  legal  voters  of 
the  State  of  Maine,  and  on  the  23d  presented  it  to 
the  House,  together  with  that  of  Thomas  Thompson, 
Jr.,  and  134  members  of  the  Legislature  of  Massa- 
chusetts, then  in  session.  A memorial  of  the  same 
purport  had  been  previously  presented  by  me,  signed 
by  Origen  Bachelor,  and  425  members  of  the  New 
York  Peace  Society,  and  others.  At  certain  periods 
of  the  session,  I had  presented  three  other  petitions 
of  similar  character,  and  Mr.  Evans  of  Maine,  and 
my  colleague,  Mr.  Cushing,  had  presented  others.  I 
moved  the  reference  of  the  first  to  a select  committee. 
The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs 
manifested  a strong  inclination  to  have  it  laid  on  the 
table.  He  denied  that  any  proposition  for  an  arbitra- 
tion of  differences  had  been  made  by  the  Mexican 
government,  but  was  afterwards  obliged  to  acknowl- 
edge, in  this  respect,  his  mistake.  But  he  moved  the 
reference  of  the  petition  to  his  own  committee,  and 
it  was  so  referred.  The  subsequent  petitions  on  the 
same  subject,  including  yours,  were  all  referred  to  the 
same  committee.  They  were  viewed  by  the  majority 
of  the  House  with  great  jealousy,  as  abolition  petitions, 
or  petitions  against  the  annexation  of  Texas,  in 
disguise.”*  The  petition  was  also  presented  and 


* The  following  are  extracts  from  a letter  from  ex-president  Adams 
to  the  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society : 

“Your  petition  first  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  whole  government 
of  these  United  States  the  fact,  that  the  Mexican  Congress  had,  by  a 
solemn  decree  of  the  20th  of  May,  1837,  authorized  tlieir  Executive  to 
agree  with  our  government  to  refer  the  differences  between  the  two 


75 


594 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


S6 


advocated  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Clay,  and  ordered  to 
be  printed,  but  there  was  not  sufficient  time  to  act  on 
it,  as  the  session  was  near  its  close,  and  probably  the 
Senate  waited  for  the  action  of  the  House,  in  which 
body  the  petitions  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  according  to  the  request  of  its 
chairman. 

13.  The  report*  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Affairs  shows  how  little  our  popular  men  understand 
the  subject.  They  will  understand  it  better,  when  it 
becomes  more  popular.  When  we  consider  the 
treatment  which  the  first  motion  for  the  abolition  of 


countries  to  an  arbitrator.  It  appeared  at  first,  that  neither  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  nor  their  Secretary  of  State,  nor  their 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  of  their  House  of 
Representatives,  knew  the  existence  of  the  Mexican  decree.  It  was 
to  your  petitions  that  Congress  were  indebted  for  the  knowledge  that 
the  Mexican  decree  existed. 

“ The  proposal  of  a reference  to  arbitration  was  itself  so  reasonable, 
tliat  no  voice  was  heard  in  Congress  against  it  The  denial  of  its 
existence  produced  an  immediate  formal  communication  of  it  to  the 
Executive  Administration  of  the  United  States ; and  very  soon  after- 
wards, it  was  conditionally  accepted.  This  removed  all  immediate 
danger  of  a war  with  Mexico ; and  if  the  petitioners  of  the  peace 
societies  had  never  rendered  to  their  country  any  other  service,  they 
would  have  deserved  the  thanks  of  the  whole  nation  for  this. 

“ The  otlier  proposals  of  your  petition,  urging  upon  the  Congress  and 
government  of  tlie  United  States  a course  of  policy  looking  to  the 
promotion  of  universal  peace,  and  for  that  purpose  to  the  formation  and 
establishment  of  a Congress  of  Nations,  have  been  duly  considered  by 
the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  and  they  have  submitted  to  the 
House  a report,  ten  thousand  copies  of  which  have  been  ordered  to  be 
printed.  The  close  of  the  present  session  of  Congress  is  so  near,  that 
there  will  not  probably  be  time  for  a discussion  in  the  House  on  its 
principles.” 

* Appendix,  No.  8. 


87 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


595 


the  slave  trade  met  with  in  the  British  Parliament  in 
1776 — that  there  was  not  one  member  who  had 
moral  courage  enough  to  second  the  motion,  and  that 
the  same  body  afterward,  not  only  abolished  the 
slave  trade,  but  slavery,  also,  in  the  British  West 
Indies,  we  have  great  reason  to  hope  for  results 
equally  favorable. 

14.  Not  at  all  discouraged  by  a result  which  they 
had  expected,  the  American  Peace  Society  forwarded 
another  petition*  to  the  Congress  of  1838-9,  in 
which  they  refute  the  reasoning  of  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs.  The  New  York  Peace  Society  also 
sent  another  petition  for  a hke  purpose,  t The  presi- 
dent of  the  American  Peace  Society  also  took  a 
journey  to  Washington  to  attend  to  the  furtherance  of 
this  business,  and  had  a special  interview  with  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  conversed  with 
some  of  the  leading  members  of  Congress,  from  all  of 
whom  he  gathered,  what  indeed  he  knew  before, 
that  if  the  rulers  in  representative  governments  are 
to  be  induced  to  adopt  any  new  measure  of  public 
utility,  it  must  be  through  their  constituents.  In  such 
purposes  application  must  always  be  made  chiefly  to 
those  in  whom  the  sovereignty  is  established,  — to 
monarchs  in  monarchical  governments,  to  the  people 
in  popular  governments,  and  to  both  in  mixed  gov- 
ernments. The  chief  use  of  such  petitions  in  popular 
governments  is,  to  bring  the  subject  before  the  people 
by  means  of  their  representatives.  President  Van 


Appendix,  No.  9. 


f Appendix,  No.  10. 


596 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


88 


Buren  said  he  had  noticed  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  which  had 
been  sent  to  him,  and  had  read  a part  of  it,  but  had 
not  yet  communicated  it  to  Congress.  Before  either 
the  President  or  the  Congress  of  these  United  States 
wall  act  on  this  subject,  the  sovereign  people  must 
act,  and  before  they  will  act,  they  must  be  acted  on 
by  the  friends  of  peace ; and  the  subject  must  be 
laid  before  the  people,  in  all  parts  of  our  country,  as 
much  as  it  has  been  in  Massachusetts,  where  there 
has,  probably,  been  as  much  said  and  done,  on  the 
subject,  as  in  all  the  other  twenty-five  states  of  the 
Union.  When  the  whole  country  shall  understand 
the  subject  as  well  as  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  will  be  as  favorable  to 
a Congress  of  Nations  as  the  General  Court  of  Mas- 
sachusetts ; and  when  the  American  government 
shall  take  up  the  subject  in  earnest,  it  will  begin  to  be 
studied  and  understood  by  the  enlightened  nations  of 
Europe.  As  the  session  of  1838-9  was  what  is 
generally  called  the  short  session,  closing  on  the  4th 
of  March,  no  report  was  made  on  these  petitions, 
which,  as  usual,  had  been  committed  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs.  Uncertain  what  would  be 
the  fate  of  these  petitions,  the  American  Peace 
Society  thought  best  to  forward  another  short 
petition.  * Since  that  petition  was  sent  on,  we  have 
learned,  through  the  medium  of  the  public  journals, 
that  the  petitions  not  acted  on  during  the  session  of 


* Appendix,  No.  It. 


89  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  597 

1838-9  are  continued  in  the  same  committees  to 
whom  they  were  referred,  to  be  acted  on  this  year 
[1839-40].  Beside  these  petitions,  shorter  ones, 
signed  by  many  persons,  have  also  been  sent  on 
much  more  numerously  this  year  than  ever  before.  * 
Very  able  petitions  have  also  been  penned  by  private 
individuals,  and  signed  by  almost  all  the  citizens  of 
the  neighboring  community. 

15.  The  attention  paid  to  the  subject  in  Great 
Britain,  and  the  petition  to  parliament,  we  have 
noticed  before.f  It  has  also  received  some  attention 
on  the  continent  of  Europe,  particularly  in  Switzer- 
land. The  late  Count  de  Sellon,  member  of  the 
Sovereign  Council  of  Geneva,  the  founder  and  presi- 
dent of  the  peace  society  of  that  canton,  offered  a 
prize  of  400  francs  for  the  best  dissertation  on  this 
subject,  in  the  year  1830,  and  had  some  correspon- 
dence with  the  rulers  of  Europe  on  the  general 
subject  of  peace,  which  was  politely  and  favorably 
answered ; but  so  extremely  difficult  is  the  communi- 
cation between  this  country  and  Switzerland,  that  we 
are  much  in  the  dark  concerning  his  movements. 
The  time  will  come,  when  a Congress  of  Nations  will 
establish  an  international  post-office  for  the  whole 
civihzed  world.  Then  all  the  great  moral  enterprises 
will  move  on  with  an  accelerated  velocity. 


* For  a sample  of  these  petitions,  see  Appendix,  No.  12. 
t Appendix,  No.  13. 


598 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


90 


CHAPTER  X. 


ON  THE  OBJECTIONS  WHICH  MAY  BE  RAISED  AGAINST  A CONGRESS 
AND  COURT  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Objections  expected — 2.  Concentration  of  power — 3.  No  power  to 
enforce  the  decrees  of  the  Court — 4.  Danger  to  governments — 5. 
Danger  to  republics — 6.  The  present  mode  of  umpirage  sufficient — 
7.  Expense — 8.  The  same  objections  lie  against  all  national  arbitra- 
tion. 

1.  It  is  but  reasonable  to  expect  objections  against 
our  plan.  The  greater  part  of  the  world  are  opposed 
to  innovations,  and  consider  “ an  old  error  better  than 
a new  truth.”  It  is  much  easier  to  remain  in  error 
than  to  attempt  improvement.  It  requires  no  effort 
to  keep  still,  but  it  does  to  advance.  Hence  the 
progress  of  moral  reformation  is  always  slow.  Man- 
kind are  apt  to  cry  like  the  slothful  man  in  the 
proverb,  “There  is  a lion  in  the  way.”  But  we 
should  not  be  discouraged  for  all  this,  for  we  know 
that  many  things  have  been  accomplished  which  were 
once  thought  as  impracticable  as  the  plan  which  we 
propose ; but  we  should  patiently  continue  to  remove 
objections  as  fast  as  they  are  brought  up.  It  is  prob- 
able that  similar  objections  were  started  when  it  was 
first  proposed  that  the  trial  by  jury  should  take  the 
place  of  the  ordeal  of  battle,  as  this  had  taken  the 
place  of  private  revenge,  assassination,  and  murder. 
The  plan,  which  we  propose  in  a Congress  of  Nations, 


91 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


599 


is  a similar  advance  on  the  manners  of  the  age,  that 
the  trial  by  fair  battle,  regulated  by  well-known  and 
acknowledged  laws,  was  on  the  private  revenge  of  the 
time  of  Alfred  the  great ; and  the  Court  of  Nations 
substitutes  an  appeal  to  reason  for  the  trial  by  battle, 
or  an  appeal  to  brute  force,  as  the  trial  by  jury  suc- 
ceeded the  ordeal  of  battle. 

2.  The  first  objection,  raised  by  those  who  have 
never  looked  into  the  subject — -which  class,  unfortu- 
nately, comprises  the  bulk  of  community  — is,  that 
we  are  for  concentrating  too  much  poicer  in  the  hands 
of  a few  men,  and  they  fancy  great  fleets  and  armies, 
as  was  proposed  in  the  Great  Scheme  of  Henry  IV. 
It  is  a sufficient  answer  to  this  objection,  that  phys- 
ical power  to  enforce  the  laws  of  our  Congress,  or 
the  decrees  of  our  Court,  forms  no  part  of  our  plan. 

3.  The  next  objection  which  we  shall  consider  is 
of  quite  the  contrary  character.  It  is  objected,  that 
ice  have  made  7io  provision  for  enfoixing  the  laws  of 
our  Congress  and  the  decrees  of  our  Cow't  by  physical 
power,  fleets  and  armies;  and  that,  therefore,  such 
laws  and  judgments  would  prove  entirely  abortive. 
This  objection  is  somewhat  specious  and  requires 
consideration.  If  it  be  valid,  why  have  so  many  wise 
and  able  writers  taken  great  pains  to  compose  trea- 
tises on  the  Law  of  Nations.  None  of  these  writers 
possessed  the  physical  power  to  carry  their  laws  into 
effect;  yet  their  opinions  have  always  had  great 
weight,  and  they  have  been  considered  benefactors 
to  mankind.  Now,  should  a great  number  of  able 
civilians  convene  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the 


600 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


92 


various  points  of  international  law,  is  it  not  likely, 
that  they  would  much  better  express  what  is  the 
general  will  of  mankind  than  isolated  individuals  shut 
up  in  their  studies  ? “ Law  is  the  expression  of  the 

general  will,”  and  nothing  else,  whether  it  be  national 
or  international.  There  is  one  great  advantage  which 
would  attend  a Congress  of  Nations,  which  is,  that 
on  such  points  as  are  difficult  to  settle  by  abstract 
reasoning,  the  representatives  of  nations  could  agree 
in  the  spirit  of  compromise.  The  same  objection 
would  lie  against  a weak  power  ever  making  a treaty 
with  a strong  one.  All  these  laws  would  be  but  a 
treaty,  by  which  the  nations  represented  would  bind 
themselves  to  observe  certain  principles,  in  their 
future  intercourse  with  one  another,  both  in  peace  and 
in  war.  The  same  objection  would  lie  against  leav- 
ing any  dispute  to  arbitrators  ; for  no  person  expects 
that  the  umpire  will  enforce  his  award  by  military 
power.  I believe  that,  even  now,  public  opinion  is 
amply  sufficient  to  enforce  all  the  decisions  of  a Court 
of  Nations,  and  the  “ schoolmaster  is  abroad,”  and 
public  opinion  is  daily  obtaining  more  power.  If  an 
Alexander,  a Caesar,  a Napoleon,  have  bowed  down 
to  public  opinion,  what  may  we  not  expect  of  better 
men,  when  public  opinion  becomes  more  enlightened  ? 
The  pen  is  soon  to  take  the  place  of  the  sword,  and 
reason  is  soon  to  be  substituted  for  brute  force,  in 
settling  all  international  controversies.  Already  there 
is  no  civilized  nation  that  can  withstand  the  frown  of 
public  opinion.  It  is  therefore  necessary,  only  to 
enlighten  public  opinion  still  farther,  to  insure  the 


93 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


601 


success  of  our  plan.  In  civilized  countries  there  is 
not  probably  one  tenth  part  of  the  people  who  obey  the 
laws  from  fear  of  the  sword  of  the  magistrate.  Nine 
persons  out  of  ten  fear  disgrace  more  than  they  do 
any  other  punishment ; and  men  often  inflict  capital 
punishment  on  themselves,  in  order  to  escape  from 
the  frown  of  public  opinion,  which  they  fear  more 
than  death.  It  is  true  that,  heretofore,  public  opinion 
has  not  had  so  much  influence  on  nations  as  on 
individuals ; but,  as  intercourse  between  nations  in- 
creases, the  power  of  public  opinion  will  increase. 
Nations  make  war  as  individuals  fight  duels,  from  fear 
of  disgrace,  more  than  from  any  othei’  cause.  If  it 
were  disgraceful  to  go  to  war  when  there  is  a regular 
way  of  obtaining  satisfaction  without,  wars  would  be 
as  rare  as  duels  in  New  England,  where  they  are 
disgraceful. 

4.  Another  objection  is,  that  a Congress  of  JSTations 
icoiild  be  dangerous  to  existing  forms  of  government, 
particularly  to  the  republican  form.  This  objection 
has  been  urged  with  considerable  plausibility  in  this 
country ; but  on  examination  into  our  plan,  it  vanishes 
of  itself.  The  Congress  of  Nations  is  not  to  concern 
itself  with  internal  affairs  of  nations,  but  only  with 
international  affairs,  and  could  have  nothing  to  do 
with  forms  of  government.  Besides,  no  member  of 
the  confederation  is  bound  by  any  law  which  it  has 
not  ratified ; and  as  each  law  is  of  the  nature  of  an 
article  of  a treaty,  if  supposed  to  be  dangerous  to 
free  institutions,  the  delegates  from  free  governments 
would  not  vote  for  it,  and  no  law  can  be  enacted  by  the 

76 


602 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


94 


Congress  of  Nations  without  an  unanimous  vote ; and 
even  if  it  were  passed,  if  it  were  not  ratified  by  all  the 
nations  of  the  confederacy,  it  would  be  null  and  void, 
like  an  article  pf  an  unratified  treaty.  And,  again,  as 
the  Congress  of  Nations  is  not  trusted  with  any 
physical  force,  as  has  been  the  case  with  many  of  the 
confederacies  which  we  have  examined,  and  was  to 
have  been  the  case  in  the  Great  Scheme  of  Henry 
IV,  there  could  be  no  danger  of  a nation  being  com- 
pelled to  change  its  form  of  government.  And  yet, 
again,  the  same  argument  would  be  equally  conclu- 
sive against  any  treaty  between  a republic  and  a 
monarchy. 

5.  But  still  the  objector  urges  that,  as  the  decrees 
of  the  Court  of  JYations  are  passed  by  a majority  of  the 
judges,  as  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
not  by  unanimous  consent,  as  in  the  Congress  of  JYations, 
republics  would  not  stand  so  good  a chance  of  obtain- 
ing justice  as  monarchies,  which  would  be  more  nu- 
merously represented  in  the  Court  of  Nations,  and  the 
judges  representing  them  might  be  influenced  by  their 
prejudices  against  republics.  To  this  we  answer,  that 
it  is  not  certain  that  monarchies  would  be  more  numer- 
ously represented  than  republics  and  limited  monarch- 
ies ; that  the  United  States,  a republican  government, 
has  been  willing  to  leave  its  disputes  with  the  crowned 
heads  of  Europe,  to  other  crowned  heads,  without 
the  fear  of  partiality,  and  have  not  suffered  by  it. 
The  same  objection  might,  with  equal  plausibility,  be 
urged  against  a trial  by  jury,  in  which  the  cause  of  a 
catholic  may  be  tried  by  a jury  of  which  a majority 


95 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


603 


are  protestants,  or  a person  of  one  political  party  by 
a jury  of  which  a majority  are  of  the  opposite  party. 
We  do  not  pretend  that  our  system  is  perfect,  for 
there  is  nothing  perfect  on  earth.  All  that  we 
contend  for  is,  that  this  peaceful  mode  of  settling 
international  controversies  is  better  than  war,  and 
more  likely  to  give  a righteous  verdict  without  the 
innumerable  evils  of  war. 

C.  It  has  been  objected,  that  tve  have  now  many 
precedents  of  submitting  national  difficulties  to  um- 
pires agreed  on  by  both  parties,  and  loe  want  nothing 
more.  It  is  true,  such  references  of  international 
difficulties  have  often  taken  place  of  late,  and  we  hail 
them  as  auspicious  tokens  that  our  plan  will  finally 
succeed ; for  they  are  very  evident  approximations  to 
it.  But  the  advantages  of  a Court  of  Nations  over 
individual  umpirage  must  be  very  evident,  from  the 
following  considerations:  1st.  An  umpire  has  now  no 
law  of  nations  by  which  to  regulate  his  decisions.  It 
is  granted  that  there  have  been  many  able  writers  on 
the  law  of  nations ; but  their  laws  are  sanctioned  by 
no  authority,  and  they  do  not  agree  among  them- 
selves. The  decisions  of  individual  umpires  would 
be  formed  by  no  rule  of  generally  acknowledged  law ; 
and  would  often  be  different  under  similar  circum- 
stances ; which  would  not  only  detract  from  their 
moral  power,  but  would  prevent  the  formation  of  a 
body  of  international  common  law,  to  be  a guide  to 
future  decisions.  2d.  A single  umpire,  especially  a 
crowned  head,  having  political  and  commercial  re- 
lations to  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  cannot  be  expected 


604 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


96 


to  be  SO  impartial  as  a bench  of  eminent  jurists, 
selected  from  the  most  renowned  in  their  own  coun- 
try for  their  talents,  integrity  and  experience,  and 
translated  from  the  highest  judicial  stations  in  their 
own  nation  to  fill  the  highest  judicial  station  in  the 
world ; especially  as  they  know  that  their  judgments 
will  be  rejudged  by  all  mankind,  and  to  the  latest 
posterity.  With  such  men,  the  desire  of  a reputation 
for  being  great  jurists  has  been  their  ruling  passion 
through  life  — their  ultimate  object ; and  a stronger 
motive  could  not  be  laid  before  them.  They  may 
err  in  judgment,  for  “to  err  is  human,”  but  they 
would  not  be  so  likely  to  err  as  a single  umpire,  and 
bribing  would  be  out  of  the  question ; and  if  one  could 
possibly  be  bribed,  the  majority  of  them  could  not. 
3d.  Such  men  are  not  only  more  able  than  men  in 
general  to  detect  the  sophisms  and  false  reasoning  of 
the  pleaders  of  either  party  to  an  international  dispute, 
but  they  are  more  able  to  make  the  case  plain  to  all 
the  world.  It  is  of  little  importance  for  a judge  to  be 
able  to  perceive  the  truth,  if  he  is  not  able  to  make 
the  truth  appear  plain  to  the  jury,  not  only  as  to 
matters  of  fact,  but  also  as  to  matters  of  argument. 
No  one  who  has  been  in  the  habit  of  attending 
common  courts  of  law  is  unconscious  of  something 
like  this,  in  his  own  mind.  One  barrister  gets  up  and 
pleads  the  cause  of  his  client ; and  the  unpractised 
juryman  thinks  that  the  truth  is  undoubtedly  with 
him.  The  counsel  for  the  opposite  party  pleads,  and 
then  the  juryman  reverses  his  decision,  or  hangs  in 
doubt.  But  the  judge  takes  up  the  case,  strips  the 


97 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


605 


falsehood  from  the  truth,  and  exposes  the  sophistry  of 
the  pleaders ; and  then  the  jury  unanimously  agree 
upon  a verdict.  4th.  Experience  shows  how  much 
nations  prefer  a numerous  body  of  umpires  to  a single 
one.  Within  the  last  two  hundred  years  there  have 
been  fifty  congresses  for  the  settlement  of  international 
difficulties,  though  there  have  not  been  ten  cases  of 
individual  umpirage  in  the  same  time.  Had  there 
been  a Court  of  Nations,  the  French  government 
would,  probably,  have  submitted  its  disputes  with 
Mexico,  Buenos  Ayres,  and,  perhaps,  with  queen 
Pomare,  also,  to  it,  instead  of  deciding  them  by  the 
mouth  of  the  cannon ; for,  in  answer  to  the  offer  of 
England  to  mediate  between  France  and  Mexico, 
the  French  government,  through  its  official  organ,  the 
Journal  des  Debats,  replied : “ No  foreign  tribunal  is 
sufficiently  elevated  to  impose  its  jurisdiction  ” in  the 
premises.  These  remarks  were  considered  by  the 
court  of  London  as  coming  from  an  official  source, 
and  they  contain  a precious  confession,  on  the  part  of 
France,  that  there  is  great  need  of  such  a tribunal  as 
the  Court  of  Nations,  which  would  be  “sufficiently 
elevated  ” to  judge  this  and  similar  cases. 

7.  Some  may  be  disposed  to  object  to  our  plan,  on 
account  of  its  expense.  This  would  be  light  indeed 
when  compared  with  the  cost  of  war.  It  wmuld  not 
cost  a nation  so  much  as  the  maintenance  of  a single 
gun-boat,  nor  all  Christendom  so  much  as  the  support 
of  a single  frigate  in  active  service ; while  it  would 
save  thousands  of  millions,  pay  off  the  national  debts 


606 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


98 


of  all  countries,  reduce  the  taxes  seven-eighths,  and 
leave  a large  fund  for  internal  improvements,  educa- 
tion, and  every  useful  work. 

8.  We  may,  therefore,  safely  conclude,  that  no 
objection  can  be  brought  against  our  plan  of  a Con- 
gress and  Court  of  Nations,  which  is  not  equally  valid 
against  all  legislative  and  judicial  bodies;  that  the 
system  is  safe  for  all  forms  of  government ; that  its 
expense  is  not  worth  naming ; and  that  it  is  altogether 
preferable  to  individual  umpirage,  as  it  concentrates 
the  public  opinion  of  the  whole  civilized  world,  and 
would  be  able  to  enforce  its  decrees  and  decisions  by 
moral  power  alone. 


99 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


607 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  REASONS  WHICH  WE  HAVE  TO  HOPE  THAT  A CONGRESS  AND 
COURT  OF  NATIONS  MAY  BE,  BEFORE  LONG,  ESTABLISHED. 


1.  Every  thing  which  ought  to  be  done  can  be  done — 2.  Great  changes 
have  taken  place — 3.  Individual  vengeance  of  former  times — 
4.  Origin  and  progress  of  society— 5.  Change  of  opinion  in  religious 
persecution — 6.  On  piracy — 7.  On  war — 8.  Amelioration  of  the 
evils  of  war — 9.  Religious  wars  no  longer  tolerated — 10.  Opinion  on 
the  slave  trade  changed — 1 1.  Also  on  the  use  of  alcohol — 12.  Im- 
provements in  civil  society — 13.  Increased  power  of  public  opinion — 
14.  Increased  intercourse  of  nations — 15.  Missionary  enterprise — 
16.  Disposition  to  arbitrate  international  difficulties — 17.  Improve- 
ment in  the  arts  of  destruction — 18.  The  ascending  side  of  justice — 
19.  Favorable  principle  in  human  nature — 20.  Prophecy. 

1.  It  is  an  incontrovertible  axiom,  that  every  thing 
of  a moral  nature  ivhich  ought  to  be  done,  can  be 
done.  There  is  no  object  favorable  to  the  hap- 
piness of  mankind,  and  founded  on  the  immutable 
principles  of  truth,  which  zeal,  intelligence  and  perse- 
verance, with  self-sacrifice,  will  not  finally  accomplish. 
I do  not  say  that  so  great  an  enterprise,  as  a Congress 
of  Nations,  can  be  accomplished  in  a day.  It  will 
probably  be  of  slow  growth,  like  the  trial  by  jury,  and 
by  slow  degrees  it  will  ultimately  arrive  at  the  same 
approximation  to  perfection,  which  that  has  arrived  at. 
There  is  the  greater  need,  therefore,  that  those  who 
favor  the  object  should  begin  the  work  without  loss 
of  time.  If  we  wish  to  eat  of  the  date,  we  should 


608 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


100 


plant  the  seed  immediately.  If  we  wish  our  children 
to  see  the  tlower  of  the  aloe,  we  must  ourselves  begin 
the  cultivation. 

2.  If  we  look  back  into  the  history  of  the  world,  we 
shall  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the  above- 
mentioned  axiom ; for  changes  have  taken  place  in 
the  world  as  wonderful  as  would  be  the  change  from 
the  trial  of  international  disputes  by  brute  force  and 
the  chance  of  war,  to  the  trial  of  such  disputes  by 
reason  and  an  impartial  tribunal.  Indeed,  such 
changes  have  already  taken  place  with  respect  to 
individuals,  and  even  of  independent  states  confed- 
erated together  for  the  purpose,  though  on  a small 
scale.  I shall  briefly  allude  to  a few  of  these  changes. 

3.  The  time  was,  when  every  individual  took  ven- 
geance into  his  own  hands,  as  nations  do  now.  Even 
among  the  chosen  people  of  God,  the  avenger  of 
blood  was  allowed  to  pursue  the  manslayer,  and  if  he 
overtook  the  homicide  before  he  reached  a city  of 
refuge,  he  slew  him  without  a trial.  This  practice, 
but  without  the  city  of  refuge,  still  obtains  among  the 
savage  nations  of  America,  the  Arabs,  and  in  many 
parts  of  Greece.  When,  therefore,  Alfred  the  great 
instituted  the  ordeal  by  battle  and  regulated  revenge 
by  law  and  gave  it  the  sanction  of  religion,  it  was 
considered  a great  advance  on  the  barbarous  manners 
of  the  age.  Bringing  the  custom  of  war  — which  is 
nothing  else  than  the  custom  of  unregulated  robbery, 
revenge  and  assassination  — under  certain  rules  and 
regulations,  avoiding  much  of  its  frequency,  abating 
its  cruelty,  and  diminishing  the  number  of  persons 


101 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


609 


who  should  be  considered  combatants,  would  prepare 
the  way  for  subjecting  the  whole  system  to  a trial  by 
reason  and  the  Court  of  Nations,  as  the  ordeal  by 
battle  was  gradually  changed  into  the  Grand  Assize, 
which  was  substituted  for  it  by  St.  Louis,  of  France, 
and  Henry  II,  of  England,  after  an  existence  of  five 
centuries.  This  amelioration  began  by  exempting 
certain  characters  from  the  trial  by  battle ; then  certain 
causes  were  excluded ; then  other  causes,  under  certcdn 
circumstances,  as  when  compurgators,  or  jurors,  would 
swear  to  the  innocence  of  the  accused, — but  the 
juror  was  liable  to  be  challenged  by  the  prosecutor, — 
the  accused  could  not  be  compelled  to  risk  life  or 
limb  a second  time,  under  the  same  accusation,  and 
many  other  ameliorations  were  gradually  introduced, 
until  the  judicial  combat  became  entirely  obsolete  in 
all  countries  where  it  had  existed ; and  the  only 
shadow  of  it  left  is  the  modern  duel,  though  it  has 
not  been  ten  years,  since  the  trial  by  battle,  in  all 
cases,  was  formally  expunged  from  the  statute  law  of 
England.  Formerly,  the  judicial  combat  was  almost 
universal  in  Christendom,  and  was  impiously  called 
an  “appeal  to  heaven,”  and  was  preceded  by  fasting  and 
prayer,  as  the  custom  of  war  is  now.  If  this  custom 
of  the  duel  or  private  war,  once  sanctioned  by  church 
and  state,  has  been  denounced  by  both,  why  may  not 
the  custom  of  war,  in  due  time,  share  the  same  fate  1 
4.  The  origin  and  progress  of  society  also  affords 
a hope,  that  a trial  of  international  disputes  by 
a regularly  constituted  court,  judging  by  known  and 
acknowledged  laws,  may  in  time  take  the  place  of 

77 


610 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


102 


the  ordeal  of  war.  Small  bodies,  like  the  indepen- 
dent states  of  Greece,  Italy,  Germany,  Gaul,  the  Saxon 
Heptarchy,  the  Hanse  Towns,  the  Helvetic  Union, 
&c.,  have  voluntarily  congregated  together,  not  only 
for  the  purpose  of  mutual  defence  against  a foreign 
power,  but  for  mutual  defence  against  each  other. 
These  found  it  necessary  to  constitute  certain  councils 
and  diets,  which  were  as  successful  in  securing  peace 
among  the  several  members  of  the  league,  as  could 
reasonably  have  been  expected,  considering  the  dark- 
ness, ignorance,  and  belligerent  spirit  of  the  times  in 
which  they  existed ; and  were  bright  spots  in  the 
history  of  those  dark  ages.  But  they  admitted  two 
principles  among  them,  which  destroyed,  at  length, 
their  utility,  and  from  which  our  plan  is  free.  The 
first  of  these  was,  the  enforcement  of  their  decrees  by 
the  power  of  the  sword,  instead  of  depending  on  \ 
moral  power  alone.  The  other  evil,  which  attended 
their  organizations,  was  the  union  of  the  legislative, 
judiciary  and  executive  powers  in  one  body.  This 
introduced  intrigue,  ambition,  and  many  other  baleful 
passions  and  practices,  which  strongly  tried  their 
principles  of  peace  and  justice ; but  with  all  these 
disadvantages,  — such  is  the  force  of  the  principles 
which  we  advocate, — they  continued  to  preserve 
peace  among  themselves  for  centuries,  with  but  little 
interruption ; and  when  they  fell,  they  fell  rather  by 
external  violence  than  internal  dissensions. 

5.  The  change  of  opinion  on  the  necessity  of 
religious  persecution  warrants  the  hope,  that  it  will 
likewise  change  on  the  necessity  of  war.  There  was 


103 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


611 


a time  when  religious  persecution  was  thought  as 
necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  church  as  war  is  now 
to  the  safety  of  the  state;  and  this  opinion  was 
peculiar  to  no  sect,  for  Protestants  were  persecutors 
as  well  as  Catholics.  The  fires  of  persecution  were 
lighted  up  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world,  and 
rivers  of  blood  flowed,  for  the  vain  purpose  of  pro- 
curing an  uniformity  of  faith  and  practice  in  the 
affairs  of  religion ; but  who  now  would  dare  to  raise 
his  voice  in  favor  of  religious  persecution?  If  so 
wonderful  a change  in  public  opinion  has  taken  place 
with  respect  to  religious  wars,  why  may  we  not 
expect  a similar  change  with  respect  to  political  wars  ? 

6.  Piracy  was  practised  and  honored  by  the 
polished  Athenians,  who  plundered  and  enslaved  all 
who  were  not  Greeks ; and  piracy  has  been  allowed, 
and  even  honored,  almost  to  the  present  day.  Sir 
Thomas  Cavendish,  a famous  pirate,  flourished  about 
the  year  1590,  and  the  celebrated  Dampiere,  about  a 
century  later.  The  latter  was  advanced  to  the  com- 
mand of  the  sloop  of  war  Roebuck.  Charles  II 
knighted  Morgan,  a famous  pirate,  and  gave  him  the 
command  of  one  of  his  ships  of  war.  Now  who  is 
there  to  advocate  piracy  ? It  is  true,  privateering  is 
but  licensed  piracy,  and  we  can  hardly  conceive  the 
difference  between  the  unlicensed  pirate  and  the 
foreigner  who  ships  on  board  a privateer,  to  fight 
against  a country  with  which  his  own  is  at  peace,  and 
to  rob  and  murder  those  who  never  injured  him  or 
his  country.  The  time  is  not  far  distant  when,  though 
war  may  be  continued,  such  men  will  be  treated 


612 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


104 


as  pirates,  and  the  whole  system  of  privateering 
abandoned  by  the  mutual  consent  of  all  civilized 
nations,  assembled  by  their  ambassadors  in  a Congress 
of  Nations. 

7.  The  great  change  which  has  lately  taken  place 
in  public  opinion,  on  the  lawfulness  and  expediency 
of  war,  affords  a hope  that  this  change  will  go  on, 
until  the  time  shall  come  when  it  will  be  thought 
neither  glorious,  just,  nor  wise,  to  conquer  foreign 
countries,  and  thereby  load  the  conquering  country 
with  debts  and  taxes,  as  well  as  the  conquered  nation. 
Once  it  was  different.  Lord  Bacon  was  of  opinion, 
that  war  was  as  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  the  state, 
as  exercise  to  the  health  of  a man.  Hobbes  maintained 
that  there  was  no  obligation  of  justice  between  nations; 
and  that  wars  for  conquest  and  spoil  were  authorized 
by  the  law  of  nature.  Fenelon,  the  amiable  arch- 
bishop of  Cambray,  in  his  Telemachus,  advises  his 
prince  to  send  his  subjects  into  foreign  wars,  to 
acquire  a martial  spirit  and  disseminate  it  among  their 
countrymen.  But  Frederic  the  great,  though  a great 
conqueror,  considered  that  no  conquest  he  ever  made 
was  worth  one  year’s  interest  of  the  money  it  cost. 
Franklin  thought  that  there  never  was  a good  war,  nor 
a bad  peace.  Jefferson  was  an  honorary  member  of 
the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  and  so  was  the 
emperor  Alexander.  Cassimir  Perrier,  the  late 
lamented  prime  minister  of  France,  was  eminently 
a man  of  peace,  and  so  is  Lord  Brougham,  and  even 
Daniel  O’Connell.  This  change  of  opinion,  on  the 
subject  of  war,  indicates  that  a change  of  measures 
is  not  far  distant  in  the  vista  of  time. 


105 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


613 


8.  The  amelioration  of  the  physical  evils  and  suf- 
ferings of  wai’  warrants  a belief,  that  they  may  be 
further  ameliorated,  until  war  comes  to  be  attenuated 
to  a mere  shadow  of  what  it  has  been.  It  may  be 
true  that  “the  natural  state  of  man  is  war,”  as  was 
affirmed  by  Hobbes ; but  Christianity  has  begun  to 
modify  the  natural  state  of  man,  and  its  first  step  was 
a mitigation  of  the  horrors  of  war.  Formerly,  poison 
and  assassination  were  practised  by  civilized  nations, 
as  they  are  still  by  barbarians.  Christianity  has 
abohshed  those  customs.  But  Christian  nations  still 
starve  their  enemies  in  masses,  and  assassinate  them 
by  wholesale.  Formerly,  all  the  inhabitants  of  an 
enemy’s  country  were  treated  alike,  and  were  enslaved 
or  killed.  Now,  the  greater  part  are  considered  as 
non-combatants,  and  their  life  and  hberty  are  spared ; 
and  there  is  reason  to  hope  that  this  fist  of  non- 
combatants  will  be  farther  enlarged,  so  as  to  embrace 
all  men  following  their  peaceful  business,  whether  by 
sea  or  land.  Formerly,  all  the  property  of  the  enemy 
was  considered  lawful  prize  to  the  captor.  Now, 
private  property  on  shore  is  respected ; and  we  have 
reason  to  hope,  that  this  amelioration  will  advance, 
until  private  property  shall  be  respected  on  the  ocean, 
at  least  under  a neutral  flag.  Why  may  not  these 
ameliorations  continue  to  go  on,  until  war  becomes  a 
mere  matter  of  form  and  nonintercourse  1 

9.  There  are  many  things  which  were  formerly 
thought  justifiable  causes  of  war,  which  are  thought 
so  no  longer.  Once  it  was  thought  right  to  propagate 
Christianity  by  the  sword ! Crusades  were  preached 


614 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


106 


up,  not  only  against  the  pagans,  but  against  various 
sects  of  Christians,  and  they  were  thought  agreeable 
to  justice  and  the  gospel  of  the  Prince  of  peace. 
Once,  wars  for  conquest  and  spoil  were  justified, 
and  conquerors  extolled  to  the  skies  and  almost 
deified.  Now,  public  opinion  is  so  far  corrected,  that 
wars  to  propagate  the  Christian  religion  are  never 
thought  of,  and  wars  for  conquest  and  plunder  are 
reprobated,  and  those  who  engage  in  them  are  com- 
pelled, by  the  power  of  public  opinion,  to  issue  a 
manifesto  to  show  the  justice  of  their  cause ; for  men 
now  fight  professedly  for  justice.  A little  more  light 
will  show  mankind  that  the  sword  is  a capricious 
arbiter  of  justice  ; and  were  there  an  adequate  tribunal, 
no  government  could  without  disgrace  appeal  to  the 
sword  for  justice,  at  least,  until  it  had  invited  its 
adversary  to  refer  their  disputes  to  that  tribunal. 
Nations  are  now  not  justified  in  resorting  to  war, 
until  they  have  tried  every  other  mode  of  redress ; 
and  war  is  called  “ the  last  resort  of  kings,”  simply 
because  there  never  has  been  an  international  tribunal 
on  an  extended  scale. 

10.  The  great  change  in  public  opinion  which  has 
taken  place  with  respect  to  the  slave  trade,  warrants 
the  hope,  that  a similar  change  may  take  place  with 
respect  to  war.  This  trade  was  carried  on  for  cen- 
turies, with  the  approbation  of  the  Christian  public ; 
and  millions  of  our  fellow-creatures  have  been  carried 
into  hopeless  bondage.  Yet  it  was  not  until  the  year 
1776,  that  any  attempt  was  made  to  abolish  it;  and 
that  attempt  was  met  with  a more  decided  rejection. 


107 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


615 


by  the  British  parliament,  than  our  petitions  for  a 
Congress  of  Nations  have  met  with  from  the  American 
congress.  The  advocates  of  the  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade  were  then  treated  with  greater  contempt 
than  the  advocates  of  the  abolition  of  war  are  now. 
Yet  the  former  succeeded  beyond  their  most  san- 
guine expectations,  and  similar  success  may  attend 
the  advocates  of  peace. 

11.  The  great  change  in  public  opinion,  which  has 
taken  place  with  respect  to  the  benefit  to  be  derived 
from  the  use  of  ardent  spirits,  warrants  a hope,  that 
a similar  change  will  take  place  at  no  distant  day, 
with  respect  to  the  utility  of  war.  Once,  alcohol  was 
thought  as  necessary  to  the  health  of  a man,  as  war 
is  now  to  the  safety  of  the  state ; but  alcohol  is  now 
denounced  as  poison,  and  the  time  is  not  far  distant 
when  war  will  be  considered  a greater  evil  than 
alcohol.  Not  long  since,  the  advocates  of  total 
abstinence  from  all  that  can  intoxicate,  were  consid- 
ered fanatics ; but  their  wonderful  success  shows  the 
power  of  truth  when  properly  presented.  Many, 
who  once  considered  the  trade  in  ardent  spirits  law- 
ful, have  now  abandoned  it.  The  same  may  take 
place  with  respect  to  the  trade  of  war. 

12.  The  improvements  in  civil  society,  which  have 
been  increasing  since  the  last  great  war  in  Europe,  in 
a geometrical  ratio,  w'arrant  the  belief,  that  mankind 
will  adopt  a more  rational  and  civilized  mode  of  set- 
tling their  disputes  than  the  barbarous  custom  of  war. 
Arms  have,  in  a great  measure,  given  place  to  laws. 
Formerly,  a man  had  no  other  way  of  acquiring 


616 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


108 


celebrity,  than  being  great  in  fight,  and  in  emulating 
savage  beasts  in  the  display  of  courage  and  ferocity. 
The  arts,  the  sciences,  politics,  jurisprudence,  travels, 
inventions,  and  the  benevolent  enterprises  of  the  day, 
furnish  more  rational  fields  for  the  ambitious.  Emu- 
lation in  the  works  of  benevolence  is  taking  place  of 
emulation  in  the  arts  of  destruction. 

13.  The  late  improvement  in,  and  increased  power 
of,  public  opinion  furnish  another  guaranty  of  peace. 
Glory  and  conquest  are  no  longer  acknowledged  as 
justifiable  causes  of  war.  Every  war  requires  a 
manifesto  in  which  the  justification  of  war  measures 
is  attempted.  Even  Napoleon  himself,  in  the  pleni- 
tude of  his  power,  trembled  at  the  shaking  of  a pen, 
in  the  hand  of  a British  reviewer.  No  army,  no 
fortress,  can  withstand  the  attacks  of  public  opinion. 
It  reaches  the  tyrant  on  the  throne,  and  the  conqueror 
on  the  field  of  battle,  and  stings  through  the  folds  of 
purple  and  the  coat  of  mail.  “ Arms  cannot  kill  it. 
It  is  invulnerable,  and,  like  Milton’s  angels,  ‘ Vital  in 
every  part,  it  cannot,  but  by  annihilation,  die.’”* 
Public  opinion  is  daily  becoming  more  powerful, 
because  more  enlightened ; for  “ great  is  the  truth, 
and  it  will  prevail,”  and  finally  triumph  for  ever  over 
brute  force. 

1 4.  The  increased  intercourse  of  nations  is  another 
guaranty  of  peace.  It  was  the  former  policy  of  na- 
tions to  be  as  independent  of  one  another  as  possible 
— withdrawing  within  themselves  like  a tortoise,  to 


* D.  Webster. 


109 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


617 


look  on  security  from  external  danger  as  the  chief 
end  of  government ; without  exchanging  the  gifts  of 
kind  Providence  with  other  nations,  by  means  of  that 
great  highway,  the  ocean,  which  he  has  created  for 
the  purpose  of  exchanging  the  surplus  products  of 
one  nation  for  the  superfluities  of  another ; and  thus 
relieving  the  necessities  of  all.  Under  this  Chinese 
system,  mankind  became  prejudiced,  morose  and 
misanthropic,  and  considered  the  depression  of  a 
neighboring  country  the  elevation  of  their  own. 
Nations  now  begin  to  see,  that  God  has  made  man- 
kind for  a system  of  mutual  dependence  on  one 
another,  and  that  the  more  we  are  dependent  on 
another  nation,  the  more  that  nation  is  dependent  on 
us  — that  to  impoverish  our  customers  is  not  to  enrich 
ourselves,  and  that  the  more  we  buy  of  other  nations, 
the  more  they  will  buy  of  us.  Hence  a wonderful 
spring  has  been  given  to  commerce  — all  climates  are 
brought  into  juxtaposition,  and  the  superfluities  of 
one  climate  minister  to  the  wants,  the  comforts,  and 
the  luxuries  of  another.  This  happy  state  of  things  is 
interrupted  by  war ; and  the  evils  of  war  are  found 
not  only  in  the  tax-book  of  the  belligerent,  but  in 
the  workshop,  and  on  the  farm  and  plantation  of  the 
neutral.  The  manufacturers  and  merchants  of  Eng- 
land would  have  found  their  advantage  in  paying 
all  the  claims  of  France  on  Mexico,  if  that  would 
have  prevented  the  blockade  of  La  Vera  Cruz. 
Though  the  United  States  were  almost  the  only 
carriers  in  the  world,  during  the  late  wars  in  Europe, 
yet  they  found  their  commerce  so  crippled  and 

78 


618 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


110 


restricted  by  war,  that  they  preferred  a state  of  war 
itself  to  neutrality.  The  world  has  at  length  found 
out,  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  every  nation  to  keep 
all  the  other  nations  at  peace. 

15.  The  union  of  almost  all  Christian  nations  in 
spreading  the  gospel  of  peace  over  the  world,  is 
another  of  the  signs  of  the  times  favorable  to  the 
cause  of  permanent  and  universal  peace.  In  the 
dark  ages,  Christian  nations  united  in  arms,  and 
bishop-generals  led  their  mailed  monks  and  vassals 
to  Palestine,  for  the  purpose  of  wresting  an  empty 
sepulchre  from  the  hands  of  the  infidels,  by  sword 
and  spear.  In  the  words  of  Anna  Comnena,  “All 
Europe  was  emptied  on  Asia.”  They  took  the 
sword,  and  they  perished  by  the  sword.  Now,  an 
holier  enterprise  is  on  foot,  more  consistent  with  the 
genius  of  Christianity.  Christians  have  again  gone 
forth,  but  armed  with  the  “ sword  of  the  Spirit,  which 
is  the  word  of  God and  their  design  is  to  conquer 
the  world  and  to  bring  it  under  the  mild  sceptre  of 
the  Prince  of  peace  ; and  every  wind  brings  us  news 
of  their  success  in  one  quarter  or  another.  War 
would  put  a stop  to  all  these  peaceful  conquests,  not 
only  by  stopping  all  intercourse,  but  by  a still  worse 
consequence  — the  example  of  fighting  Christians 
on  those  they  are  seeking  to  convert  to  the  gospel  of 
peace.  With  what  reluctance  must  the  missionaries 
inform  the  new  converts,  that  their  stations  must  be 
abandoned,  because  the  Christian  nations,  that  had 
ministered  to  their  support,  were  engaged  in  mutual 
slaughter ! Every  one  who  supports  the  missionary 


Ill 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


619 


cause  will,  if  consistent,  favor  the  cause  of  peace  and 
a Congress  of  Nations. 

16.  A disposition  among  the  nations  of  Christen- 
dom to  mediate  and  to  arbitrate,  is  another  of  the 
signs  of  the  times,  which  is  highly  auspicious  to  the 
cause  of  permanent  and  universal  peace.  Never, 
before,  was  there  such  a disposition  to  avoid  war. 
Belgium  and  Holland  have  referred  their  disputes  to 
England  and  France.  Great  Britain  and  America 
have  referred  their  disputes  to  Russia  and  Holland. 
The  United  States  and  Mexico  have  called  on  the 
king  of  Prussia  as  an  umpire  between  them ; and  the 
benevolent  exertions  of  Christian  nations  have  ex- 
tended beyond  Christendom,  and  the  five  great 
powers  of  Europe  have  offered  to  mediate  between 
the  Grand  Sultan  and  the  Pacha  of  Egypt.  This  is 
indeed  the  “era  of  good  feelings;”  and  the  time  is  at 
hand,  when  no  nation  will  venture  on  war  before 
an  offer  of  arbitration,  without  disgrace  bordering  on 
execration.  Now,  if  the  arbitration  of  an  individual 
umpire  is  good,  the  judgment  of  a regular  Court  of 
Nations  is  better,  for  the  reason  already  shown ; so 
that  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  such  a 
court  will,  ere-long,  be  established. 

17.  Even  the  late  improvement  in  the  arts  of 
destruction,  and  the  increased  expense  of  war,  are  a 
security  for  the  continuance  of  peace.  It  is  true, 
many  of  the  barbarous  and  protracted  torments  of 
ancient  warfare,  such  as  poison,  and  the  starvation  and 
crucifixion  of  prisoners  have  ceased  among  Christians, 
but  the  means  of  immediate  destruction  have  greatly 


620 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


112 


increased.  The  congreve-rocket,  the  torpedo,  the 
newly  invented  bomb  and  bullet,  the  steam -frigate, 
and  many  others  in  contemplation,  afford  means  of 
immediate  destruction  unknown  to  the  ancients,  or  to 
modern  nations  not  yet  converted  to  Christianity ; and 
they  enable  the  machinist  to  be  more  efficient  in 
destroying  human  life  than  the  hero.  The  increased 
expense  of  carrying  on  war  by  these  terrible  engines, 
rather  than  by  human  machines,  will  occasion  a great 
increase  of  the  burthens  of  war,  and  will  make  it 
more  difficult  to  raise  the  requisite  amount  of  taxes;  and 
this  will  turn  the  attention,  both  of  rulers  and  subjects, 
to  a cheaper  method  of  settling  international  disputes. 

18.  The  ascending  scale  of  justice,  from  the  mayor’s 
or  justice’s  courts,  to  the  inferior  and  the  superior 
courts,  and  finally  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  wants  but  one  step  more  to  complete  the  system, 
and  that  is  a court  which  shall  settle  disputes  between 
sovereign  and  independent  nations  ; in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has 
settled  many  cases  of  disputes  between  the  several 
sovereign  and  independent  States  of  North  America, 
without  ever  yet  having  caused  the  shedding  of  one 
drop  of  blood.  The  Admiralty  court  of  Great  Britain 
affects  to  be  a court  of  appeals  to  decide  cases  between 
the  British  government  and  foreigners,  by  the  law  of 
nations,  when  not  restrained  by  acts  of  parliament ; but 
it  is  not  independent,  nor  is  its  authority  acknowledged 
out  of  the  British  empire.  The  several  diets  of  the 
various  confederations  of  Europe  are  humble  imitations 
of  a Court  of  Nations,  in  reference  to  the  members  of 


113 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


621 


the  confederacy  by  which  they  have  been  organized. 
Only  one  step  further  and  we  have  a Court  of  Nations. 
There  is  great  reason  to  hope,  that  this  step  will  ere- 
long be  taken,  and  the  scale  of  justice  completed. 

19.  There  is  one  general  principle  of  human  nature, 
which  ought  not  to  be  left  out  of  our  account,  and 
that  is,  that  when  men  meet  together  with  a sincere 
desire  of  doing  any  thing  which  ought  to  be  done, 
that  very  desire  and  that  very  meeting  are  guar- 
anties that  the  thing  they  contemplate  will  be  done. 
Now  if  a convention  of  delegates  from  the  chief 
powers  of  Christendom  should  meet  together,  with  a 
sincere  desire  to  organize  a Congress  and  Court  of 
Nations,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  they  cannot  do  it. 

20.  The  above  arguments  and  facts  which  go  to 
show  that  the  time  is  near  when  Christian  and  civil- 
ized nations  will  seek  some  other  arbiter  than  the 
sword  to  settle  their  disputes,  are  amply  sufficient  to 
convince  any  unprejudiced  mind  of  the  practicability 
of  the  plan  which  we  propose.  But  as  I am  writing 
for  those  nations  that  profess  to  believe  in  the  divine 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  I draw  my  con- 
cluding argument  from  them.  From  the  many 
prophecies  which  predict  a time  of  permanent  and 
universal  peace,  I select  only  one.  “ But  in  the  last 
days,  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  the  mountain  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of 
the  mountains,  and  it  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills ; 
and  people  shall  flow  unto  it.  And  many  nations 
shall  come,  and  say.  Come,  and  let  us  go  up  to  the 
mountain  of  the  Lord,  and  to  the  house  of  the  God 


622 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


114 


of  Jacob ; and  he  will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and  we 
will  walk  in  his  paths  ; for  the  law  shall  go  forth  of 
Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem. 
And  he  shall  judge  among  many  people,  and  rebuke 
strong  nations  afar  off ; and  they  shall  beat  their 
swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into 
pruning-hooks : nation  shall  not  lift  up  a sword  against 
nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more.  But 
they  shall  sit,  every  man  under  his  vine  and  under 
his  fig-tree ; and  none  shall  make  them  afraid : for 
the  mouth  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath  spoken  it."”  Micah 
4:  1 — 4.  Now,  though  we  may  reasonably  expect, 
from  the  promises'  of  God,  and  the  signs  of  the  times, 
that  the  period  is  not  far  distant,  when  wars  will  cease ; 
yet  we  cannot  reasonably  expect,  that  while  man 
remains  the  same  selfish  creature  he  is,  disputes  and 
contentions  will  altogether  cease;  but  that  very  selfish- 
ness will  induce  him  to  seek  some  cheaper,  safer  and 
surer  way  of  obtaining  justice,  than  war ; and  a Court 
of  Nations  will  be  both  the  cause  and  effect  of  the 
perpetual  cessation  of  war.  Mankind  have  tried  war 
long  enough  to  know  that  it  seldom  redresses  griev- 
ances, and  that  it  generally  costs  more  than  the  redress 
is  worth,  even  when  it  is  most  successful;  and  “that,” 
to  use  the  words  of  Jefferson,  “war  is  an  instrument 
entirely  inefficient  toward  redressing  wrong ; that  it 
multiplies  instead  of  indemnifying  losses.”  What, 
then,  shall  hinder  the  nations  from  adopting  a cheap 
and  sure  mode  of  redress,  such  as  a Court  of  Nations 
promises  ? — what  but  blindness  to  their  own  happiness, 
which  cannot  always  endure  ? 


115 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


623 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ON  THE  BENEFITS  WHICH  WOULD  BE  LIKELY  TO  ACCRUE  FROM  A 
CONGRESS  AND  A COURT  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Little  need  be  said  under  this  head — 2.  Code  of  international  law — 
3.  Court  of  Nations — 4.  Conservators  of  the  peace  of  nations — 
5.  Abatement  of  taxation — 6.  Saving  of  human  life — 7.  Moral  evils 
of  war  prevented. 

1.  Much  need  not  be  said  on  this  subject  after  the 
preceding  chapters,  as  it  would  be  only  a repetition  of 
arguments.  In  fact,  the  advantages  are  so  obvious, 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  much ; but  I will  men- 
tion a few  particulars  not  before  stated,  or  but  slightly 
alluded  to. 

2.  One  advantage  to  be  derived  from  a Congress 
of  Nations  is  a code  of  international  law,  no  longer 
dependent  on  the  conflicting  and  changing  opinions 
of  civilians,  but  solemnly  agreed  upon,  after  mature 
deliberation,  by  the  nations  represented  by  their 
wisest  men,  and  confirmed  by  the  respective  govern- 
ments, like  a treaty  of  peace  or  commerce.  Every 
nation,  every  independent  state,  every  city  and  body 
corporate,  nay,  even  every  voluntary  association, 
thinks  it  necessary  to  have  a well-defined  code  of 
laws,  by  which  to  regulate  their  conduct  with  one 
another.  Why,  then,  should  not  the  community  of 
nations  have  such  a code  of  laws,  mutually  agreed  on 


624 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


116 


and  promulgated,  so  as  to  be  read  and  known  by  all 
men  ? 

3.  If  it  is  necessary  to  have  such  a code  of  laws, 
it  is  no  less  necessary  to  have  an  independent  body 
of  men,  authorized  and  commissioned  to  interpret 
those  laws,  instead  of  leaving  every  state  to  make 
that  interpretation  which  suits  its  own  interest. 

4.  It  would  be  a great  advantage  to  the  world,  to 
have  a respectable  body  of  men  to  act  as  conservators 
of  the  peace  of  nations,  whose  office  it  should  be, 
when  they  saw  a war  brewing  between  any  two 
nations,  to  offer  their  mediation,  and  propose  terms  of 
compromise.  Often  a nation,  like  an  individual,  goes 
to  war  for  honor,  when  she  would  be  very  glad  to 
refrain,  were  it  not  from  fear  that  her  courage  or  her 
power  would  be  suspected.  In  such  cases,  a mediator, 
like  the  Court  of  Nations,  would  generally  keep  the 
peace  of  nations. 

5.  Submission  of  international  disputes  to  a Court 
of  Nations  would  relieve  the  people  of  most  nations 
of  seven-eighths  of  their  taxes.  It  is  computed  that 
750,000,000  of  dollars  are  annually  drawn  from  the 
pockets  of  the  people  of  Europe,  for  the  purposes  of 
keeping  up  war-establishments  in  time  of  peace ; nearly 
all  of  which  could  be  spared,  and  either  left  for  the 
increased  enjoyments  of  all  classes  of  community,  or 
expended  in  internal  improvements,  or  in  common 
schools,  academies  and  colleges.  If  the  governments 
of  Europe  would  adopt  the  measure  of  a simultaneous 
disarmament,  they  might  do  it  without  fear,  and  spend 
the  sums,  now  lavished  on  armies,  in  increasing  the 


117 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


625 


comforts  and  education  of  the  poor,  for  then,  they 
would  have  no  occasion  for  standing  armies  to  keep 
the  people  in  subjection ; and  the  wealth  so  expended 
would  soon  be  returned  to  government,  with  interest, 
from  the  increased  ability  of  their  subjects  to  pay 
taxes,  and  the  increased  ability  of  all  classes  of  the 
people  to  purchase  the  luxuries  of  life,  which  might 
still  be  sufficiently  taxed,  while  the  necessaries  of  life 
might  be  left  free  from  taxation. 

6.  The  saving  of  money,  now  lavished  in  support- 
ing stupendous  naval  and  military  establishments, 
would  be  of  small  consideration,  when  compared  with 
the  saving  of  human  life,  by  a pacific  policy.  It  is 
supposed  that  the  average  life  of  a soldier  in  war  does 
not  exceed  three  years.  The  celebrated  Neckar 
calculated,  that  one  third  of  new  recruits  perished 
the  first  year  by  the  hardships  of  a military  life.  Of 
the  victims  of  war,  probably  not  one  in  ten  ever  feels 
the  stroke  of  an  enemy.  Who  can  tell  the  amount  of 
physical  suffering  endured  in  war,  when  the  most 
civilized  nations  of  the  world  bend  all  their  ingenuity, 
arts,  and  knowledge  to  the  single  purpose  of  inflicting 
the  greatest  possible  amount  of  suffering  on  one 
another  ? 

7.  But  the  physical  evils  and  pains  of  war  are 
“trifles  light  as  air,”  when  compared  with  its  moral 
evils,  and  the  contamination  of  the  fleet  and  the  camp, 
“ where,”  as  Dr.  Doddridge  says,  in  his  Life  of  Colonel 
Gardiner,  “the  temptations  are  so  many,  and  the 
prevalence  of  the  vicious  character  so  great,  that  it 
may  seem  no  inconsiderable  praise  and  felicity,  to  be 

79 


626 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


118 


free  from  dissolute  vice ; and  the  few  who  do  escape, 
should  be  recorded  heroes  indeed,  and  highly 
favored  of  Heaven.”  The  celebrated  Robert  Hall, 
in  a sermon  against  war,  says,  “It  is  the  fruitful 
parent  of  crimes.  It  reverses,  with  respect  to  its 
object,  all  the  rules  of  morality.  It  is  nothing  less 
than  a temporary  repeal  of  all  the  principles  of  virtue. 
It  is  a system  out  of  which  almost  all  the  virtues  are 
excluded ; and  in  which  nearly  all  the  vices  are 
incorporated.”  Now  if  a Court  of  Nations  should 
prevent  but  one  war  in  a whole  century,  all  the 
trouble  and  expense  of  organizing  such  a Court 
would  be  amply  repaid. 


119 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


627 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

MEANS  TO  BE  USED  FOR  THE  PURPOSE  OF  OBTAINING  A CONGRESS 
OF  NATIONS. 

1.  The  same  means  as  are  used  in  other  moral  enterprises — 2.  Miseries, 
crimes,  and  sins  of  war  exposed — 3.  Enlighten  the  people. 

1.  The  means  of  hastening  “ a consummation  so 
devoutly  to  be  wished,”  as  the  organization  of  a 
Congress  and  Court  of  Nations,  are  much  the  same 
as  those  which  have  been  used,  to  further  other 
benevolent  operations  of  the  day.  When  Sharpe, 
Wilberforce  and  Clarkson  attempted  the  great  re- 
formation which  they  so  successfully  accomplished, 
they  began  with  exposing  the  horrors  and  crimes  of 
the  slave  trade.  Persons  were  employed  to  collect 
facts,  and  lay  them  before  the  public  in  popular 
lectures.  The  press  was  engaged  in  showing  the 
cruelty  and  injustice  of  the  traffic,  by  tracts  and 
newspaper  essays ; and  the  pulpit  thundered  its 
anathemas  against  it.  By  the  united  attacks  of  this 
triple  alliance,  the  strongholds  of  the  slave  trade  were 
demolished ; and  nations  which  had  before  sanctioned 
it,  now  pronounced  it  piracy. 

2.  Let  the  same  be  done  in  the  cause  of  Peace. 
Let  the  miseries,  the  crimes,  the  sins  of  war  be 
detected,  and  vividly  portrayed  before  the  power  that 
rules  the  nation.  In  republican  governments  and 


628 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


120 


limited  monarchies,  this  power  lies  in  the  people.  It 
is  vain  to  expect,  that  governments  will  be  moved, 
until  the  people  are  — for,  in  representative  govern- 
ments, all  reforms  must  necessarily  commence  with 
the  people.  In  countries  where  the  power  lies  in  a 
monarch,  he  must  be  addressed,  on  the  subject ; for, 
in  such  governments,  it  is  the  monarch  who  chiefly 
gives  the  tone  to  public  opinion,  though  he  himself  is 
often  under  its  influence.  All  monarchs  love  to  be 
popular  at  home  and  abroad.  Like  other  men,  they 
love  praise,  or  glory,  as  they  call  it,  and  will  fight  for 
it,  so  long  as  fighting  insures  them  the  applause  of 
the  world.  The  same  men  would  pursue  a pacific 
policy,  if  it  were  more  popular ; and  we  have  reason 
to  hope,  that  there  are  even  some  who  would  do  so, 
if  it  were  not  popular.  Henry  IV,  though  a monarch 
almost  absolute,  devised  a plan,  the  professed  object 
of  which  was  nearly  the  same  as  ours,  though  the 
means  of  its  accomplishment,  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  to  be  conducted,  were  very  different  from  ours. 
He  was  seconded  by  Elizabeth,  queen  of  England, 
whose  power  was  limited  by  a parliament,  of  which  a 
part  was  elected  by  the  people  and  a part  was  an 
hereditary  aristocracy ; and  by  Switzerland  and  other 
confederated  republics.  The  form  of  government 
was  no  obstacle  to  the  “ great  proposal,”  nor  would  it 
be  to  our  Congress  of  Nations. 

3.  Though  we  indulge  high  expectations  from 
such  monarchs  as  the  present  king  of  Prussia,  who 
has  shown  himself  to  be,  in  many  things,  far  in 
advance  of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  yet  our  hope  relies 


121 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


629 


chiefly  on  the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  and 
France ; pretty  much  in  proportion  to  the  voice 
which  the  people  have  in  the  government.  The  first 
Step,  then,  is  to  enlighten  the  people,  as  has  been 
done  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts ; and  they  will  call 
on  their  State  Legislatures  with  success,  as  they  have 
done  in  that  State,  and  as  they  have  done  in  Maine 
and  Vermont,  but  the  people  being  less  enlightened  on 
the  subject,  in  these  two  States,  the  cause  has  not  yet 
met  with  similar  success  there.  The  people  need  more 
light.  When  a majority  of  the  State  Legislatures 
shall  call  on  the  general  government,  in  as  decided  a 
tone  as  Massachusetts  has  done.  Congress  will  fall  in 
with  the  plan,  for  it  will  be  popular.  Our  govern- 
ment will  then  call  on  the  government  of  Great 
Britain,  where  light  has  been  spreading ; and  the  Brit- 
ish government  will  yield  to  the  solicitation  of  its  own 
subjects,  and  our  Executive ; and  both  together  will 
call  on  France.  If  no  more  than  these  three  powers 
are  gained,  the  cause  is  ours ; and  the  Congress  of 
Nations  may  go  into  immediate  operation ; and  when 
the  delegates  of  these  three  powers  are  assembled, 
they  may  extend  their  invitation  to  the  other  powers 
of  Christendom.  Switzerland,  where  much  has  al- 
ready been  done  on  the  subject,  would  soon  join, 
and  the  South  American  republics,  as  soon  as  they 
have  consolidated  their  governments.  The  confed- 
erations of  Germany,  with  Belgium,  Holland,  Den- 
mark, and  Sweden,  would  not  be  backward,  as  soon 
as  they  saw  that  the  plan  was  likely  to  succeed. 
The  philanthropic  and  enlightened  king  of  Prussia 


630 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


122 


would  not  be  far  behind  them ; and  Russia  and 
Austria  would  not  see  such  great  movements  going 
on,  without  taking  a part;  but  they  would  go  on, 
whether  these  powers  took  a part  in  them  or  not. 
Spain,  Portugal,  and  Italy  would  come  at  last ; and  it 
would  be  no  wonder,  if  this  generation  should  not 
pass  away  before  the  Grand  Sultan  and  the  Bey 
of  Egypt  will  submit  their  disputes  to  a Court  of 
Nations.  The  storm  of  war  would  soon  be  hushed 
in  Christendom,  and  that  main  obstacle  to  the  con- 
version of  the  heathen  being  removed,  Christianity 
would  soon  spread  all  over  the  world. 


123 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


631 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


ON  THE  DUTY  OF  ALL  MEN,  BOTH  RULERS  AND  SUBJECTS,  TO  EN- 
DEAVOR TO  OBTAIN  A CONGRESS  OP  NATIONS. 

1.  Nations  have  no  moral  right  to  declare  war,  until  they  have  exhausted 
all  the  means  of  preserving  peace^ — 2.  The  physical  evils  of  war 
should  be  prevented — 3.  Also  the  moral  evils — 4.  Neglect  of  duty. 


1.  It  is  a generally  acknowledged  principle,  that 
nations  have  no  moral  right  to  go  to  war,  until  they  have 
tried  to  preserve  peace  by  every  lawful  and  honorable 
means.  This,  the  strongest  advocate  for  war,  in  these 
enlightened  days,  will  not  deny,  whatever  might  have 
been  the  opinion  of  mankind,  on  the  subject,  in 
darker  ages.  When  a nation  has  received  an  injury, 
if  it  be  of  such  a magnitude  as,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
injured  party,  ought  not  to  be  submitted  to ; the  first 
thing  to  be  done  is  to  seek  an  explanation  from  the 
injuring  nation ; and  it  will  be  often  found,  that  the 
injury  was  unintentional,  or  that  it  originated  in 
misapprehension  and  mistake,  or  that  there  is  no  real 
ground  of  offence.  Even  where  the  ground  of 
offence  is  undeniable,  and,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
world,  the  injured  nation  has  a right  to  declare  war, 
it  is  now  generally  believed,  that  they  are  not  so  likely 
to  obtain  redress  and  reparation  by  war  as  by  forbear- 
ance and  negotiation;  and  that  it  is  their  bounden 


632 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


124 


duty,  both  to  themselves  and  to  the  world  at  large,  to 
exhaust  every  means  of  negotiation,  before  they 
plunge  themselves  and  other  nations  into  the  horrors 
and  crimes  of  war.  The  United  States  had  much 
ground  of  complaint  against  Great  Britain,  during 
Washington’s  administration.  Instead  of  declaring 
war,  Jay  was  sent  to  England,  and  full  and  complete 
satisfaction  was  obtained  for  all  the  injuries  received, 
by  the  influence  of  moral  power  alone,  for  we  had  not 
then  a single  ship  of  war  on  the  ocean.  At  a subsequent 
period,  with  twice  the  population,  and  twenty  times 
the  means  of  offence,  impatient  of  a protracted  nego- 
tiation, we  resorted  to  war,  and  got  no  reparation  of 
injuries,  or  satisfaction  whatever,  except  revenge, 
bought  at  an  enormous  expense  of  men  and  money, 
and  made  peace,  leaving  every  cause  of  complaint  in 
the  statu  quo  ante  helium.  Had  we  protracted  the 
negotiation  thirty  days  longer,  the  war  and  all  its  evils, 
physical  and  moral,  would  have  been  avoided.  Some- 
times negotiations  have  failed  altogether  to  obtain 
redress.  Then  an  offer  of  arbitration  should  follow. 
Now  what  we  are  seeking  for  is,  a regular  system  of 
arbitration,  and  the  organization  of  a board  of  arbitra- 
tors, composed  of  the  most  able  civilians  in  the  world, 
acting  on  well-known  principles,  established  and 
promulgated  by  a Congress  of  Nations.  If  there 
were  such  a Court,  no  civilized  nation  could  refuse  to 
leave  a subject  of  international  dispute  to  its  adjudi- 
cation. Nations  have  tried  war  long  enough.  It  has 
never  settled  any  principle,  and  generally  leaves 


125  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS.  633 

dissensions  worse  than  it  found  them.  It  is,  therefore, 
high  time  for  the  Christian  world  to  seek  a more 
rational,  cheap,  and  equitable  mode  of  settling  inter- 
national difficulties. 

2.  When  we  consider  the  horrible  calamities  which 
war  has  caused,  the  millions  of  lives  it  has  cost,  and 
the  unutterable  anguish  which  it  produces,  not  only 
on  the  battle-field  and  in  the  military  hospital,  but  in  the 
social  circle  and  the  retired  closet  of  the  widow  and 
orphan,  we  have  reason  to  conclude,  that  the  inquisi- 
tion, the  slave  trade,  slavery,  and  intemperance,  all 
put  together,  have  not  caused  half  so  much  grief  and 
anguish  to  mankind  as  war.  It  is  the  duty,  therefore, 
of  every  philanthropist,  and  every  statesman,  to  do 
what  they  can  to  support  a measure  which  will 
probably  prevent  many  a bloody  war,  even  if  the 
probabifity  were  but  a faint  one. 

3.  When  we  consider  that  war  is  the  hotbed  of 
every  crime,  and  that  it  is  the  principal  obstacle  to 
the  conversion  of  the  heathen,  and  that  it  sends 
millions  unprepared  suddenly  into  eternity,  every 
Christian  ought  to  do  all  he  can  to  prevent  the  evil 
in  every  way  in  his  power,  not  only  by  declaiming 
against  war,  and  showing  its  sin  and  folly,  but  by 
assisting  to  bring  forward  a plan  which  is  calculated 
to  lessen  the  horrors  and  frequency  of  war.  Should 
all  the  endeavors  of  every  philanthropist,  statesman 
and  Christian  in  the  world  be  successful  in  preventing 
only  one  war,  it  would  be  a rich  reward  for  their 
labor.  If  only  once  in  a century,  two  nations  should 


80 


634 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


126 


be  persuaded  to  leave  their  disputes  to  a Court  of 
Nations,  and  thereby  one  war  be  avoided,  all  the 
expense  of  maintaining  such  a court  would  be  repaid 
with  interest. 

4.  We  therefore  conclude,  that  every  man,  whether 
his  station  be  public  or  private,  who  refuses  to  lend 
his  aid  in  bringing  forward  this  plan  of  a Congress 
and  Court  of  Nations,  neglects  his  duty  to  his  country, 
to  the  world,  and  to  God,  and  does  not  act  consistently 
with  the  character  of  a statesman,  philanthropist,  or 
Christian. 


127 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


635 


CHAPTER  XV. 

RECAPITULATION  AND  CONCLUSION. 

Part  I.  1.  Division  of  the  subject — 2.  Organization  of  a Congress  of 
Nations — 3.  Subjects  to  be  discussed — 4.  Rights  of  belligerents — 
5.  Rights  of  Neutrals — 6.  Objects  of  a civil  nature — Part  II. 
1.  Of  a Court  of  Nations — 2.  Examples  of  attempts  at  similar  insti- 
tutions— 3.  Attempts  of  individuals  and  peace  societies — Part  III. 
1.  Objections  met — 2.  Reasons  of  hope — 3.  Benefits  to  be  derived — 
4.  Means  to  be  used — 5.  Duty  enjoined — Part  IV.  1.  Conclu- 
sion and  appeal. 

I find  I have,  without  any  previous  design,  divided 
my  subject  into  the  four  following  distinct  parts : 

I.  1st.  I have  shown  what  our  object  is.  In  this 
I have  differed  from  the  preceding  authors,  and,  also, 
from  my  own  previous  writings  on  this  subject,  by 
dividing  it  into  two  distinct  branches,  viz.,  1st.  A 
Congress  of  Nations  for  the  establishment  of  a code  of 
international  laws  and  other  purposes  promoting  the 
peace  and  happiness  of  mankind;  and,  2d,  a Court  of 
Nations  entirely  distinct  from  the  Congress,  though 
organized  by  it,  for  the  purpose  of  arbitrating  or 
adjudicating  all  disputes  referred  to  it  by  the  mutual 
consent  of  two  or  more  contending  nations.  The 
first  I would  call  the  legislative,  the  second  the 
judiciary  power,  entirely  distinct  from  it  — the  first 
periodical,  the  other  perpetual.  For  the  executive 
we  trust  to  public  opinion.  2d.  I have  treated  of  the 


636 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


128 


organization  of  the  Congress  of  Nations,  composed 
of  delegates  from  such  powers  as  should  choose 
to  be  represented  there,  each  delegation  to  be  as 
numerous  as  the  nation  sending  it  should  choose, 
but  entitled  to  only  one  voice  or  vote ; and  the 
reception  of  new  members  is  provided  for.  3d.  I 
have  mentioned  some  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed, 
such  as  the  rights  of  belligerents  toward  each  other, 
and  the  possibility  of  lessening  the  physical  evils  of 
war.  4th.  I have  treated  of  the  rights  of  belligerents 
toward  neutrals,  which  should  be  clearly  defined ; and, 
5th,  the  rights  of  neutrals  established  and  enlarged. 
6th.  I have  also  touched  on  some  principles  of  a civil 
nature,  which  might  be  settled  by  this  Congress  of 
Nations. 

II.  1st.  I have,  secondly,  given  my  views  of  a 
Court  of  Nations  organized  by  the  Congress,  for  the 
peaceful  adjudication  of  such  international  disputes  as 
should  be  referred  to  it  by  the  mutual  consent  of  any 
two  or  more  contending  nations  ; and,  2d,  I have  given 
some  examples,  taken  from  both  ancient  and  modern 
history,  of  institutions  somewhat  similar  to  a Congress 
and  Court  of  Nations,  among  which,  I dwelt  particu- 
larly on  the  Congress  of  Panama,  and  showed  the 
reasons  of  its  failure  — reasons  not  likely  to  occur 
again ; and,  3d,  I have  given  an  account  of  some  of 
the  attempts  of  private  individuals  and  peace  societies 
to  call  the  attention  of  mankind  to  this  subject. 

III.  1st.  I have  also  stated  the  common  objections 
which  are  raised  against  a Congress  or  Court  of 
Nations,  and  have  endeavored  to  answer  them ; and 


129 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


637 


have,  2d,  stated  some  of  the  reasons  which  we  have 
to  hope  that  this  plan  will,  at  no  distant  day,  be 
carried  into  effect ; and,  3d,  have  endeavored  to  show 
a few  of  the  benefits  which  would  accrue  from  it. 
4th.  I have  shown  the  means  by  which  this  great 
work  may  be  accomplished ; and,  5th,  produced  a 
few  of  the  arguments,  to  show  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  man  to  do  all  he  can,  to  assist  in  bringing  it 
forward. 

IV.  In  conclusion,  I would  only  remark,  that  if  we 
have  done  no  other  good,  by  procuring  and  publishing 
these  Essays,  we  have  set  up  a landmark,  for  the 
guidance  of  those  who  may  succeed  us.  When  the 
American  Peace  Society  first  entered  on  this  work, 
there  were  only  two  Essays  in  the  whole  world  on  the 
subject,  viz.,  Penn’s  and  St.  Pierre’s,  both  very  meagre, 
crude  and  undigested.  Beside  these,  we  had  only  what 
could  be  gathered  from  Sully’s  account  of  the  Great 
Scheme  of  Henry  IV.  Now  within  these  ten  years, 
there  have  been  about  fifty  dissertations  written, 
many  lectures  delivered,  and  petitions  presented  to 
State  legislatures,  and  resolutions,  favorable  to  the 
plan,  passed.  Petitions  have  also  been  presented  to 
the  American  congress,  with  a report  on  them  widely 
circulated,  and  a petition  to  the  British  parliament ; 
and  the  subject  has  been  much  discussed,  both  in 
public  and  private,  and  there  has  been  evidently  a 
great  advance  in  public  opinion,  in  favor  of  the  plan, 
which  needs  only  to  be  fully  and  extensively  under- 
stood to  insure  its  adoption  by  all  the  enlightened 
nations  of  Christendom ; which  adoption  will  insure 


638 


CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 


130 


the  extension  of  Christendom  to  the  earth’s  remotest 
bounds.  Finally,  to  adopt  the  language  of  St.  Pierre, 
at  the  close  of  his  Dissertation,  “We  cannot,  indeed, 
take  upon  us  to  say  that  the  sovereigns  of  Europe 
[and  the  republics  of  America]  will  actually  adopt 
our  plan,  but  we  can  safely  say,  that  they  would  adopt 
it,  if  they  only  knew  their  own  true  interests ; for  it 
should  be  observed,  that  we  have  not  supposed  men 
to  be  such  as  they  ought  to  be,  good,  generous,  and 
disinterested,  and  public  spirited,  from  motives  of 
humanity ; but,  on  the  contrary,  such  as  they  really 
are,  unjust,  avaricious,  and  more  solicitous  for  their 
private  interest,  than  for  the  public  good.  The  only 
supposition  which  we  have  made  is,  that  mankind 
have  sense  enough,  in  general,  to  know  what  is  use- 
ful to  them,  and  fortitude  enough  to  embrace  the 
means  of  their  own  happiness.  Should  our  plan, 
nevertheless,  fail  of  being  put  into  execution,  it  will 
not  be  because  it  is  chimerical,  but  because  the 
world  is  absurd ; and  there  is  a kind  of  absurdity  in 
being  wise  among  fools.” 


APPENDIX. 


No.  1. 

Extracts  from  the  “ Speech  of  Don  Manuel  Lorenzo  Vidaurre,  Minister 
from  Peru,  at  the  opening  of  the  American  Congress  of  Panama,  on 
the  2ild  of  June,  1826.” 

This  day,  the  great  American  Congress,  which  is  to  be  a council  in 
the  hour  of  conflict,  the  faithful  interpreter  of  treaties,  a mediator  in 
domestic  contentions,  and  which  is  charged  with  the  formation  of  our 
new  body  of  international  law,  has  been  organized  and  invested  with 
all  the  powers  competent  to  attain  the  important  and  dignified  end  for 
which  it  is  convoked.  All  the  precious  materials  are  prepared  to  our 
hand.  A world  regards  our  labors  with  the  deepest  attention.  From 
the  most  powerful  monarch,  to  the  humblest  peasant  of  the  Southern 
continent,  no  one  views  our  task  with  indifference.  This  will  be  the 
last  opportunity  for  the  attempt  to  prove  that  man  can  be  happy.  Let 
us,  then,  proudly  stand  forth  the  representatives  of  millions  of  freemen, 
and,  inspired  with  a noble  complacency,  assimilate  ourselves  to  tlie 
Creator  himself,  when  he  first  gave  laws  to  the  universe. 

Animated  with  celestial  fire,  and  looking  steadily  and  with  reverence 
to  the  Author  of  our  being,  difficulties  the  most  appalling  shrink  into 
insignificance.  The  basis  of  our  confederation  is  firm : Peace  with  the 
whole  world;  respect  for  European  governments,  even  where  their 
political  principles  are  diametrically  opposed  to  those  acknowledged  in 
America ; free  commerce  with  all  nations,  and  a diminution  of  imposts 
on  the  trade  of  such  as  have  acknowledged  our  independence ; religious 
toleration  for  such  as  observe  different  rites  from  those  established  by 


640 


APPENDIX. 


132 


our  constitution.  How  emphatically  are  we  taught  by  the  blood  which 
fanaticism  has  spilt,  from  the  time  of  the  Jews  to  the  commencement 
of  tlie  present  century,  to  be  compassionate  and  tolerant  to  all  who 
travel  to  the  same  point  by  different  paths.  Let  the  stranger,  of  what- 
ever mode  or  faith,  come  hither ; he  shall  be  protected  and  respected, 
unless  his  morals,  tlie  true  standard  of  religion,  be  opposed  to  the 
system  given  us  by  the  Messiah.  Let  him  come  and  instruct  us  in 
agriculture  and  the  arts.  Let  the  sad  and  abject  countenance  of  the 
poor  African,  bending  under  the  chains  of  rapacity  and  oppression,  no 
longer  be  seen  in  these  climes ; let  him  be  endowed  with  equal  privi- 
leges witli  the  white  man,  whose  color  he  has  been  taught  to  regard  as 
a badge  of  superiority ; let  him,  in  learning  that  he  is  not  distinct  from 
other  men,  learn  to  become  a rational  being. 

As  respects  ourselves,  two  dangers  are  principally  to  be  avoided. 
The  desire  of  aggrandizement  in  one  state  at  the  expense  of  another, 
and  the  possibility  tliat  some  ambitious  individual  will  aspire  to  enslave 
and  tyrannize  over  his  fellow-citizens.  Both  of  these  are  as  much  to 
be  apprehended,  as  the  weak  efforts  of  the  Spaniards  are  to  be 
contemned.  Human  passions  will  always  operate,  and  can  never  be 
extinguished ; nor,  indeed,  should  we  wish  to  stifle  them.  Man  is 
always  aspiring,  and  never  content  witli  present  possessions ; he  has 
always  been  iniquitous,  and  can  we  at  once  inspire  him  with  a love  of 
justice  ? I inist  urn  can.  He  has  had  a dire  experience  of  the  ravages 
which  uncontrolled  passion  has  caused. 

Sully  and  Henry  IV  projected  a tribunal  which  should  save  Europe 
from  the  first  of  these  calamities.  In  our  own  day,  Gordon  has  written 
a treatise  on  the  same  subject.  This  assembly  realizes  the  laudable 
views  of  the  king  and  the  philosopher.  Let  us  avoid  war.,  by  a common 
and  uniform  reference  to  negotiation. 

Above  all,  let  us  form  one  family,  and  forget  the  names  of  our 
respective  countries  in  the  more  general  denomination  of  brothers ; let 
us  trade  without  restrictions, — without  prohibition, — let  articles  of 
American  gi-owth  be  free  from  duty  in  all  our  ports — let  us  give  each 
other  continual  proofs  of  confidence,  disinterestedness  and  true  friend- 
ship ; let  us  form  a body  of  public  law,  which  the  civilized  world  may 
admire  ; in  it,  a wrong  to  one  state  shall  be  regarded  as  an  injury  to  all, 
as  in  a well-regulated  community,  injustice  to  an  individual  concerns 
the  rest  of  the  republic.  Let  us  solve  the  problem  as  to  the  best  of 
governments.  The  fomi  which  we  adopt,  securing  to  individuals  all 
possible  benefit,  and  to  the  nation  the  gTeatest  advantages,  is  that  which, 
beyond  doubt,  reaches  the  greatest  felicity  of  which  human  nature  is 
susceptible,  the  highest  perfection  of  human  institutions. 


133 


APPENDIX. 


641 


And  when  our  labors  are  concluded,  let  us  return  to  our  homes,  and, 
surrounded  by  our  children  and  grandchildren,  let  us  select  the  youngest 
of  those  beloved  objects,  and  uplifting  it,  a fit  offering  to  the  Supreme 
Being,  teach  it  in  tender  accents  to  give  thanks  for  the  inestimable 
benefits  we  have  received.  Let  the  Greek  celebrate  his  exploits  in 
leaving  Troy  in  ashes ; the  representative  of  the  American  Republics 
will  boast  of  having  promulgated  laws,  which  secure  peace  abroad  as 
well  as  the  internal  tranquillity  of  the  states  that  now  confederate. 


No.  2. 

First  Petition  to  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts. 

The  following  Petition  was  presented  to  the  Senate  of  Massachusetts, 
by  the  Hon.  Sidney  Willard,  February  6,  1835 ; 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts,  in  General  Court  convened,  on  the  first  Wednesday 
of  Januaiy,  A.  D.,  1835. 

The  Petition  of  the  subscribers  humbly  shows ; that,  a proposition 
having  been  laid  before  a very  large  and  respectable  portion  of  the 
community,  in  relation  to  a reference  by  the  Peace  Societies  to  the 
attention  of  Congress  on  the  subject  of  an  Abolition  of  War,  by 
devising  suitable  means  for  tlie  references  of  all  international  disputes 
to  a Court  of  Nations,  to  be  established  either  permanently  or  other- 
wise, in  such  form  and  manner  as  the  best  counsel  and  wisdom  of  the 
several  nations  may  hereafter  deem  proper  to  adopt ; which  proposition, 
it  appears,  had  received  the  countenance,  and  the  signatures  in  its 
favor,  of  several  thousand  individuals,  in  tliis  and  other  States,  among 
whom  are  many  of  our  fellow-citizens  of  eminent  ranlr,  talent,  and 
character,  those  also  of  all  classes  and  professions  in  the  community, 
of  all  political  parties,  and  of  every  religious  denomination : the  sub- 
scribers, deeply  impressed  with  a consideration  of  the  burdensome 
expense,  the  moral  corruption,  the  manifold  crimes,  the  private  suffering, 
and  the  public  calamities  incurred  by  war;  considering  it  inconsistent 
with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  injurious  to  the  physical,  moral,  social, 
and  religious  condition  of  the  community,  productive  of  immense  evils, 
and  subversive,  in  many  respects,  of  the  best  interests  of  mankind ; 
lamenting  the  insensibility  which  habit  and  education  have  induced 
with  respect  to  this  custom ; believing  the  decision  of  international 
disputes  on  principles  of  equity,  without  an  appeal  to  arms,  to  be 
81 


642 


APPENDIX. 


134 


dictated  by  enlightened  reason,  demanded  by  Christian  duty,  com- 
mended by  eveiy  consideration  of  self-interest,  and,  therefore,  loudly 
called  for  by  the  voice  of  wisdom ; and  seeing  the  steps  now  taking 
by  eminent  jihilanthropists,  statesmen,  and  others,  in  Great  Britain,  and 
on  the  continent  of  Europe,  to  cooperate  with  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  in  relation  to  such  measures  as  may  be  deemed  expedient  and 
practicable,  to  procure  its  abolition ; wishing  to  awaken,  yet  more 
widely  and  effectually,  the  attention  of  the  public  to  its  baneful  influ- 
ence on  the  agricultural,  the  commercial,  and  the  manufacturing  inter- 
ests, and  on  the  progress  of  civilization,  arts,  sciences,  and  religion ; 
desirous  of  investigating  the  means  best  adapted  for  the  promotion  of 
permanent  and  universal  peace,  and  of  establishing  the  conviction  that 
the  highest  dignity  of  a people  results  from  the  exercise  of  impartial 
justice  towards  all  nations,  and  that  the  highest  happiness  of  a com.- 
munity  can  be  attained  only  by  cherishing  the  spirit  and  virtues  of 
peace  ; in  a word,  considering  it  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  best 
interests  of  humanity,  civilization,  and  improvement,  that  some  mode 
of  just  arhitration  should  be  established  for  the  amicable  and  final 
adjustment  of  all  international  disputes,  instead  of  an  appeal  to  arms, 
request  the  attention  of  your  honorable  body  to  this,  as  we  deem,  highly 
important  subject,  in  order  that  such  steps  may  be  taken  in  relation 
thereto,  as  niay  appear  best  adapted  to  promote  the  end  in  view. 

Thomas  Thompson,  Jr., 

Wm.  Ladd,  Gen,  Agent  of  A.  P.  S. 


No.  3. 

Report  on  the  foregoing  Petition, 

ffiommontoEaltl)  of  JHHassacJusetts. 

The  Committee  of  the  Senate,  to  whom  was  refeiTCd  the  Petition  of 
Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.,  and  Wm.  Ladd,  General  Agent  of  the 
American  Peace  Society,  report: 

That  they  have  considered  said  petition,  which  sets  forth  that  several 
thousand  persons  in  this  Commonwealth  and  other  States,  have  signed 
a proposition  calling  on  the  peace  societies,  at  a suitable  time,  to  pre- 
sent petitions  to  Congress,  praying  that  measures  may  he  taken,  in 
connection  with  other  governments,  to  refer  all  international  disputes 
to  a Court  of  Nations,  with  a view  to  prevent  a resort  to  war,  for  the 


135 


APPENDIX. 


643 


obtaining  of  alleged  rights,  or  the  reparation  of  injuries.  The  peti- 
tioners enumerate  several  of  the  prominent  evils  of  war,  evils  which 
can  hardly  be  exaggerated,  and  request  the  attention  of  the  General 
Court  to  the  subject,  “in  order  that  such  steps  may  be  taken  in  relation 
thereto  as  may  appear  best  adapted  to  promote  the  end  in  view.” 

The  Committee,  during  the  interv'al  which  has  elapsed  since  the 
petition  was  referred  to  them,  have  taken  a deep  interest  in  the  subject 
of  it ; but  they  have  felt  embarrassed  by  that  diffidence  which  lays  its 
restraints  upon  all  men  who  are  not  marked  out  by  their  constitutional 
temperament  for  reformers,  and  who  are  placed  in  such  a novel  situa- 
tion, when, — from  the  humble  beginnings  of  small  associations,  scat- 
tered in  different  territories  of  the  civilized  parts  of  the  earth,  toiling 
and  praying  for  the  peace  of  nations, — they  have  looked  forward  to  the 
glorious  consummation  devoutly  wished,  and  confidently  expected,  at 
some  period  of  the  world’s  eventful  history. 

The  Committee  are  fully  persuaded  that  pacific  principles  are  gaining 
ground.  Maidcind  are  more  and  more  convinced,  that  wars  are  gener- 
ally waged,  not  only  without  necessity,  but  even  in  defiance  of  wisdom 
and  humanity.  They  are  more  and  more  inclined  to  believe  that  some- 
thing founded  in  the  pride,  or  ambition,  or  deep-laid  policy  of  rulers,  is 
commonly  the  great  stake,  rather  than  the  interests  of  their  subjects. 
And  finding  that  the  objects  held  out  as  pretexts  for  hostilities  are 
rarely,  if  ever,  accomplished,  or,  if  gained,  at  a sacrifice  with  which  tlie 
amount  of  the  benefit  sinks  to  notliing  in  comparison ; just  views  of  the 
interests  of  man  are  leading  the  more  intelligent  to  count  the  cost  of 
these  great  games  of  princes  and  statesmen,  which  are  played  at  infinite 
expense, — expense  not  only  of  individual  and  national  wealth,  but  of 
domestic  happiness  and  of  public  morals, — and  above  all,  expense  of 
human  life,  the  value  of  which  is  not  a subject  for  computation. 

It  is  thought  by  the  Committee,  that  the  appointment  of  some  umpire, 
either  temporary  or  pennanent,  by  which  disputes  between  nations  may 
be  decided,  is  by  no  means  a visionary  project.  Such  an  umpire  can 
certainly  be  designated,  whenever  public  opinion,  in  civilized  nations, 
shall  be  sufficiently  enlightened  to  sanction  it.  It  is  already  embraced 
in  the  views  of  our  extending  peace  societies,  in  the  discussions  and 
lectures  of  our  lyceums,  in  the  debates  of  our  academic  halls ; and  it 
is  believed  that  the  Legislature  of  this  Commonwealth  would  not  go 
far  in  advance  of  public  opinion,  by  some  declarative  act  favorable 
to  this  pacific  mode  of  terminating  the  controversies  of  nations.  Such 
a declaration  would  at  least  be  harmless ; and  no  man  of  high  moral 
feeling  or  moral  courage  can  hesitate  how  to  act,  when  the  alternative 
presented  is,  on  the  one  hand,  the  possibility  of  accomplishing  an 


644 


APPENDIX. 


136 


incalculable  public  good,  and  on  tlie  other,  nothing  but  the  danger  of 
encountering  the  chilling  incredulity  or  heartless  raillery  of  those  who 
do  not  know  how  to  appreciate  his  motives. 

If  we  may  reason  from  the  less  to  the  greater,  from  plans  well  known, 
and  already  tried  with  success,  to  those  which  have  not  been  attempted 
on  a more  comprehensive  system,  and  which  may  prove  more  complex 
in  their  operations,  such  an  umpire  as  has  been  suggested  is  not 
impracticable.  It  is  no  novelty  in  a limited  sphere.  It  is  as  old  as  the 
Amphictyonic  Council,  which  came,  in  its  progress,  to  embrace  deputies 
from  tliirty-one  cities  or  states ; a council  whose  decisions  upon  the 
disputes  between  the  cities  of  Greece  were  for  a time  sacredly  and 
inviolably  regarded.  And,  in  modern  times,  the  Swiss  cantons,  with 
their  variety  of  nations  and  languages,  of  manners,  of  religion,  espe- 
cially of  tlie  two  great  antagonist  divisions.  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
and  of  governments,  too,  from  unmixed  democracy  to  stern  aristocracy, 
have,  by  tlieir  Diet,  or  Court  of  Ambassadors,  preserved  among  the 
members  of  the  confederacy  that  unifonn  peace  and  resistance  to 
foreign  aggression,  for  which  the  union  of  those  two  and  twenty 
independent  states  was  fonned. 

If  a public  attempt  is  ever  to  be  made  to  bring  war  into  discredit, 
and  to  devise  some  amicable  mode  of  settling  disputes  between  nations, 
it  may  be  well  now  for  some  public  body  to  feel  the  way.  And  no  where 
can  this  beginning  be  more  suitable  tlian  in  Massachusetts.  It  is  in 
this  Commonwealth,  if  we  except  the  Friends  or  Quakers,  that  tlie 
earliest  and  most  unintermitted  efforts  have  been  made  to  diffuse  the 
principles  of  universal  peace.  The  Massachusetts  Peace  Society  is 
looking  to  us  for  encouragement.  The  trustees,  in  their  recent  report, 
after  alluding  to  the  motion  made  last  year  in  the  Legislature,  recom- 
mending a Court  of  Nations  for  the  securing  permanent  peace,  add, 
“Should  the  measure  be  renewed  at  the  present  session,  and  meet  with 
success,  we  shall  hail  it  as  a most  felicitous  and  honorable  event.”  It 
is  a small  boon  that  they  ask  at  our  hands.  They  assume  the  labor ; 
tliey  entreat  from  us,  who  cannot  but  have  the  same  noble  purpose  at 
heart,  to  speak  an  approving  word.  They  will  be  satisfied  with  a simple 
declaration,  sucii  as  the  Committee  are  about  to  propose ; such,  as  it  is 
presumed,  will  not  be  witldield. 

If  we  are  asked  what  effects  are  to  flow  from  this  measure,  we 
answer.  It  will  show  the  people  of  this  Cormnonwealth,  that  when 
solicited  to  express  an  opinion  upon  a great  national  subject  of  vital 
concern,  a subject  which  can  excite  no  conflict  of  party  passions,  we 
do  not  turn  a deaf  ear  to  the  call ; that  we  do  not  maintain  a heartless 
silence,  but  return  a kind  and  generous  response  to  the  voice  of  those 


137 


APPENDIX. 


645 


noble  philanthropists  who  would  save  mankind  from  evils,  into  which 
those  in  times  gone  by  have  rushed  headlong,  and  which  they  have 
been  obliged  to  rue  when  it  was  too  late  to  escape  them. 

We  may  hope  tliat  an  example  so  inoffensive,  so  reasonable,  so  well 
intended,  aiming  at  the  highest  interests  of  humanity,  “Peace  on  earth 
and  good-will  to  men,”  will  not  be  overlooked;  that  it  will  be  followed 
by  other  States,  and  when,  in  this  way,  a wider  influence  shall  be  pro- 
duced upon  public  opinion,  may  it  not  be  hoped  that  the  object  will  be 
recommended  with  such  power  to  the  general  government,  as  to  lead 
to  salutary  action,  resulting  through  its  negotiations  with  other  powers, 
in  more  benevolent  and  well-defined  principles  of  international  law, 
tending  to  cut  off  many  of  the  occasions  of  national  conflicts,  and,  if 
not  to  put  a final  period  to  wars,  at  least  to  disann  them  of  some  of 
their  horrors  ? With  this  brief  and  very  imperfect  view  of  the  subject, 
tlie  Committee  unanimously  recommend  the  following  resolutions  for 
the  adoption  of  the  Legislature. 

Sidney  Wileakd,  ^ 

Daniel  Messinger,  \ Committee. 

Ephraim  Hastings,  ) 

ffiommontoealtf)  of  IWassachusetts. 

In  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature,  some  mode  should 
be  established  for  the  amicable  and  final  adjustment  of  all  international 
disputes,  instead  of  resort  to  war. 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth  be  requested  to 
communicate  a copy  of  the  above  report  and  of  tlie  resolutions  annexed, 
to  the  Executive  of  each  of  the  States,  to  be  laid  before  the  Legislature 
thereof,  inviting  a cooperation  for  the  advancement  of  the  object  in 
view. 


No.  4. 

To  the  Honorahle  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts  in  General  Court  convened  on  the  first  Wed- 
nesday of  January,  A.  D.,  1837, 

The  memorial  of  the  undersigned  humbly  shows, — That  a proposition 
having  been  by  him,  sometime  since,  suggested  in  favor  of  calling  the 
attention  of  Congress  or  inviting  that  of  the  head  of  the  Executive 


646 


APPENDIX. 


138 


Government  of  tlie  Union,  in  concert  with  such  other  g'overmnents  as 
may  see  fit  to  unite  in  counsel  with  the  United  States,  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a Congress  or  Court  of  Nations,  either  permanent  or  otherwise, 
in  such  form  and  manner  as  the  best  counsel  and  wisdom  of  the 
several  nations  may  deem  proper  to  adopt,  or  for  considering  such 
measures  as  may  be  deemed  most  suitable  for  devising,  if  possible, 
and  introducing  as  far  as  may  be  practicable,  some  other  system  of 
arbitration  for  the  settlement  of  international  disputes,  which  shall  be 
more  congenial  with  the  intellectual,  moral,  and  religious,  as  well  as 
tile  physical  advancement  of  the  age,  than  an  appeal  to  arms,  a custom 
now  beginning  to  be  very  generally  considered  by  the  enlightened  of 
all  civilized,  and  more  especially  all  Christian  communities,  as  a relic 
of  barbarism,  and  as  always  uncertain  and  wholly  inadeqnate  to  the 
speedy,  just,  and  full  redress  of  grievances ; which  proposition  has 
received  tlie  countenance  and  the  signatures,  in  its  favor,  of  a great 
number  of  individnals  eminent  in  ranlt,  talent,  and  character,  both  in 
tliis  and  other  States,  and  also  tliose  of  all  classes  and  professions,  of 
different  political  parties,  and  of  every  religious  denomination : believ- 
ing a state  of  society  has  developed  itself  in  the  United  States,  and 
also  in  some  of  die  more  enlightened  and  repnblican  nations  of  Europe, 
of  the  existence  of  which  die  govermnents  of  the  respective  countries 
have  not,  by  any  acts  in  conformity  thereto,  appeared  to  be  aware,  and 
for  which  no  adequate  preparation,  nor  any  appropriate  change  in  the 
existing  state  of  things  has  yet  been  made ; a state  of  society  by  which, 
it  appears  to  your  memorialist,  the  present  age  is  strongly  marked,  and 
whose  features  distinguish  it  most  clearly  and  prominently  from  all 
preceding  times ; a state  of  society  in  which  national  wealth  is  no 
longer  obtained  by  conquest,  the  precarious  acquisition  of  some  bold, 
restless  and  ambitious  military  cliieftain,  but  by  the  private,  individual 
exertion  of  the  intelligence,  industry  and  activity  of  the  citizens  at 
large,  in  die  pursuit  of  their  several  peaceful  professions  and  occupa- 
tions ; a state  of  society  which,  difl’ering  so  widely  and  so  totally  in  all 
its  ways  and  all  its  wants  from  that  preceding  it,  cannot  be  adequately 
fostered,  provided  for  and  protected  by  tliose  institutions  and  laws 
which  were  instituted  and  enacted  for  the  regulation,  govermnent,  and 
well-being  of  communities,  so  widely  differing  in  circumstances  and 
resources,  where  might  constitutes  the  only  effective  right,  where 
stealth  was  countenanced  by  law,  when  the  sword  occupied  the  place 
of  the  batoon,  and  the  strong  arm  was  the  only  avenger : seeing  in  the 
present  state  of  things  a change  so  marked,  and  indeed  so  radical  and 
apparently  so  permanent  a revolution,  requiring  at  least  some  modifica- 
tion of  those  rules  and  regulations  which  were  enacted  with  not  tlie 


139 


APPENDIX. 


647 


most  remote  anticipation  of  the  now  existing  actual  condition  of  a very 
large  and  continually  increasing  portion  of  society,  a community  em- 
bracing the  farmer,  the  manufacturer,  the  merchant,  the  mechanic,  the 
trader,  not  to  name  more  particularly  the  various  liberal  professions  and 
many  other  minor  classes  of  citizens,  all  peacefully,  privately,  actively, 
and  usefully  engaged  in  those  various  individual  employments  which 
tend  so  directly  and  so  effectually  to  promote,  establish  and  extend 
that  highly  cultivated  and  refined  state  of  civilization,  so  powerfully 
promotive  of  the  useful  arts  and  sciences  and  all  the  higher  interests  of 
man,  and  whose  development  can  only  be  effectually  attained  where 
man  is  in  the  enjoyment  of  perfect  freedom,  equal  rights,  and  peace  : 
considering  the  many  deep-rooted,  and  wide-spread  evils  of  war,  its 
invariably  adverse  bearing  on  the  best  interests  of  mankind,  undermin- 
ing tlie  physical,  moral,  social  and  religious  condition  of  the  commu- 
nity, imposing  the  most  burdensome  expense,  introducing  the  darkest 
crimes,  extending  the  deepest  corruption,  creating  the  keenest  individ- 
ual suffering,  social  miseries,  and  public  calamities : perceiving  tlie 
growing  disinclination  to  all  acts  of  brutal  violence,  tlie  enlightened 
opposition  already  made  by  associated  individuals,  incorporated  public 
bodies,  and  various  legislative  and  executive  autliorities,  not  only  in 
the  United  States  but  also  in  many  parts  of  Europe,  to  the  outbreaking 
of  popular  violence,  the  sanguinary  indulgence  of  private  passion,  and 
even  the  inexpedient  secret  arming  of  individuals  for  the  real  or 
declared  purpose  of  self-defence,  and  remarking,  also,  tlie  highly  hon- 
orable attitude  assumed  by  the  public  press  in  various  parts  of  this  and 
other  countries  in  favor  of  peace ; regretting,  and  desirous,  if  possible, 
to  remove,  the  widely  prevailing  insensibility  to  tlie  futility,  inexpedi- 
ency, and  folly  of  war,  an  insensibility  induced  only  by  the  combined 
effect  of  erroneous  principles  of  instruction,  long  prevalent  custom  and 
utter  want  of  due  reflection:  believing  the  introduction  of  some 
system  for  the  equitable  settlement  of  international  disputes,  without  an 
appeal  to  arms,  when  once  sanctioned  by  the  popular  favor,  to  be  per- 
fectly practicable,  as  much  so  as  any  at  present  in  existence,  for  the 
legal  decision  of  disputes  between  individuals,  incorporated  bodies, 
towns,  districts  and  states ; and,  being  thus  practicable,  to  be  demand- 
ed by  the  voice  of  common  humanity,  by  the  dictates  of  enlightened 
reason,  by  the  obligations  of  Christian  duty,  by  the  prompting  of  self- 
interest  and  by  considerations  of  public  good:  being  informed  of  the 
inclination  and  exertions  of  many  distinguished  philanthropists,  schol- 
ars, statesmen  and  others  in  Great  Britain  and  on  the  continent  of 
Europe,  to  cooperate  with  the  friends  of  peace  in  the  United  States  for 
the  adoption  of  such  measures  as  may  appear  to  he  most  expedient  and 


648 


APPENDIX. 


140 


practicable  for  the  introduction  of  some  system  of  arbitration  instead 
of  an  appeal  to  arms : desirous  of  calling  the  attention  of  the  public, 
and  of  our  several  state  and  general  govermnents,  more  immediately 
and  effectually  to  this  subject,  in  order,  from  a consideration  of  the 
baneful  influence  of  war  on  tlie  agricultural,  commercial,  manufacturing 
and  various  mechanic  interests,  on  the  progress  of  civilization,  arts, 
sciences  and  religion,  the  extensive  acquisition  of  national  wealth,  and 
the  secure  enjoyment  of  tlie  fruits  of  private  industry,  to  extend  and 
strengthen  a conviction,  that  the  highest  dignity  of  a people  results 
from  the  exercise  of  unpartial  justice  towards  all  nations ; and  the 
highest  happiness  of  a community  can  be  attained  only  by  cherishing 
the  spirit  and  virtues  of  peace : thus  proving  it  to  be  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  the  best  interests  of  civilization,  freedom,  human  im- 
provement, and  the  refinements  of  social  life,  to  establish  some  mode 
of  just  arbitration,  for  tlie  amicable  and  final  adjustment  of  all  interna- 
tional disputes,  instead  of  an  appeal  to  arms : Your  memorialist  requests 
the  attention  of  your  honorable  body  to  this,  as  he  deems  it,  and  as  he 
has  reason  to  believe,  the  great  body  of  the  people,  not  only  of  this 
State  and  the  other  members  of  our  confederacy,  but  those  of  other 
countries,  also,  think  it  to  be,  higlily  important  subject,  in  order  that 
such  steps  may  be  taken  in  relation  thereto  as  may  appear  to  be  best 
adapted  to  promote  the  end  in  view. 

Thomas  Thompson,  Jr. 

House  of  Representatives,  Feb.  18,  1837. — Refen-ed  to  the  special 
committee  on  the  subject  thereof  sent  up  for  concurrence. 

L.  S.  Cushing,  Clerk. 

Senate,  Feb.  20,  1837. — Concurred. 

Charles  Calhoun,  Clerk. 


No.  5. 

Petition  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  in  General  Court  assembled : — The 
memorial  of  tlie  undersigned,  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  of 
tlie  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  respectfully  shows : 

Tliat  tlie  Society  which  we  represent  has  existed  for  upwards  of 
twenty  years,  and  has  comprised  a considerable  number  of  tlie  citizens 


141 


APPENDIX. 


649 


of  this  Commonwealth,  some  of  whom  have  been  distinguished  for 
elevated  stations  in  the  community,  for  talent,  benevolence  and  re- 
spectability of  character,  who  have  associated  themselves  together  with 
the  design  of  abolishing,  by  moral  means,  one  of  the  greatest  evils  of 
the  human  race — the  practice  of  national  war.  They  have  been 
encouraged  in  the  promotion  of  this  design,  by  the  full  belief  that  war 
does  not  occur  from  any  natural,  or  irresistible  necessity,  but  entirely 
from  the  excited  passions,  mistaken  interests,  and  deep  delusions  of 
nations,  and  may  therefore  be  prevented  by  moral  influence  and  expo- 
sition judiciously  applied  so  as  to  enlighten  the  reason  and  consciences 
of  men.  In  these  sentiments,  and  corresponding  conduct,  they  have 
received  the  full  concurrence  of  other  similar  institutions  in  the  United 
States  and  foreign  countries. 

Among  the  various  measures  which  have  been  proposed  for  checking 
the  spirit  and  practice  of  war,  a prominent  place  has  been  given  to  the 
idea  of  an  international  Congress  or  Court,  composed  of  delegates  from 
all  the  civilized  foreign  powers,  which  should  consider  and  determine 
the  disputed  questions  arising  between  them,  in  cases  which  have 
hitherto  been  supposed  to  require  an  appeal  to  arms,  and  the  award  of 
which  should  be  considered  as  binding,  in  honor,  on  the  disputing 
parties.  This  project  has  occupied  the  attention  of  our  Society  for  a 
long  time,  and  a proposition,  comprising  it,  has  been  extensively  pre- 
sented to  individuals  of  all  ranks  and  classes  in  this  State,  by  whom  it 
has  been  almost  unanimously  and  readily  accepted.  It  was  our 
intention  to  have  submitted  this  proposition,  and  our  views  upon  it,  to 
the  govermnent  of  the  United  States,  but  having  recently  learned,  that 
your  honorable  bodies  have  referred  this  subject  to  a joint  committee, 
we  have  thought  that  an  expression  of  the  associated  friends  of  peace 
was  peculiarly  proper,  while  it  was  thus  under  consideration.  A 
meeting  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society  has  accordingly  been 
held,  and  we,  their  Executive  Committee,  have  been  directed,  in  their 
name,  and  on  their  behalf,  to  offer  to  you  their  views  and  desires  on 
this  subject. 

In  the  execution  of  this  trust,  your  memorialists  deem  it  unnecessary 
to  lay  before  you  any  demonstration  of  the  immorality  and  the  misery 
of  war,  to  which  all  history  bears  ample  testimony,  and  of  which  you 
doubtless  are  fully  aware,  and  we  feel  confident  we  shall  address  none, 
who  do  not  sincerely  desire  its  extinction.  It  is  only  incumbent  on  us, 
to  present  to  you  the  views  of  our  Society  on  the  practicability  and 
efficacy  of  the  measure  now  proposed  for  that  purpose.  We  are 
enjoined  to  request  of  your  honorable  houses,  that  if  it  seems  meet  to 
you,  some  expression  of  opinion  may  be  made  by  you,  which  may  be 
82 


650 


APPENDIX. 


142 


communicated  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  conveying  the  desire 
that  he  would  open  a negotiation  with  other  foreign  powers,  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing,  by  their  general  consent,  some  such  impartial 
tribunal,  for  the  adjustment  of  international  differences,  as  we  have 
suggested. 

On  the  practicability  of  such  an  arrangement,  your  memorialists 
would  remark,  that  it  has  been  fully  discussed  in  the  assemblies  and 
publications  of  the  friends  of  peace,  and  has  been  very  generally 
determined  in  the  affirmative,  by  all  who  have  treated  it,  including 
many  minds  by  no  means  disposed  to  be  sanguine  or  visionary.  To 
this  we  may  add,  that  rational  govermnents  have  also  indicated  their 
approbation  of  the  principle  of  this  course,  by  submission  of  disputes 
to  other  governments  as  impartial  arbiters — a measure  to  which  our 
own  government  has  more  than  once  resorted. 

It  may  be  objected  to  the  object  of  our  solicitation,  that  it  would  not 
be  proper  for  the  legislature  of  this  or  any  other  State  to  make  any 
recommendation  on  a subject  of  foreign  polity,  which  is  considered  as 
belonging  exclusively  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  On 
this  point,  your  own  wisdom  will  decide,  and  it  does  not  become  us  to 
offer  any  opinion ; we  may,  however,  be  pardoned  for  the  remark,  that 
we  cannot  think  such  an  application,  coming  in  a spirit  of  philanthropy 
from  so  respected  and  influential  a member  of  the  Union,  would  be 
regarded  as  improper  interference  with  the  prerogatives  of  the  general 
government ; nor  sliould  we  consider  the  negotiation  which  it  proposes 
hopeless  of  a favorable  result,  in  the  present  political  state  of  the  world, 
proceeding  from  a nation  whose  fonn  of  government  and  remoteness 
from  the  collisions  of  other  great  powers  would  preclude  all  suspicion 
of  sinister  motives. 

To  this — our  beloved  country — we  earnestly  desire  the  honor  of 
offering  to  the  world  this  truly  rational  policy,  which  a more  enlightened 
posterity  will  elevate  far  above  the  renown  of  violent  revolutions  and 
extensive  conquests,  and  to  our  own  Commonwealth,  to  which  has  been 
awarded  the  merited  reputation  of  advance  in  many  works  of  Christian 
benevolence,  we  would  hope  to  add  the  imperishable  glory  of  first 
pointing  out  the  merciful  refuge  of  peace. 

Respectfully  submitted  by  direction  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace 
Society. 


Charles  Lowell, 
Robert  Waterston, 
Baron  Stow, 

J.  V.  Himes, 


Thos.  Vose, 

J.  P.  Blanchard, 
Wm.  Brigham, 
Bradford  Sumner. 


143 


APPENDIX. 


651 


No.  6. 

Report  on  the  foregoing  Petitions. 

®oratnontoeaIt{)  of  JUassacJusetts. 

In  Senate,  April  4,  1837. 

The  Joint  Special  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred  an  Order  of  tlie 
15th  ultimo,  for  the  consideration  of  the  expediency  of  memorializing 
Congress,  or  the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  on  the  subject  of 
opening  a negotiation  with  such  other  governments  as  may  be  deemed 
most  judicious,  witli  a view  of  establishing  a Congress  or  Court  of 
Nations,  to  be  either  permanent  or  otherwise,  for  considering  such 
measures  as  may  be  deemed  most  suitable  for  devising  and  introduc- 
ing some  other  system,  more  congenial  with  the  moral  and  religious, 
as  well  as  physical  advancement  of  the  age,  than  an  appeal  to  arms, 
for  a redress  of  national  grievances ; and  to  whom,  also,  was  referred 
the  Memorials  of  Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.  and  the  Executive  Committee 
of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  in  reference  to  this  subject, 

REPORT : 

That  they  have  had  the  subject  under  consideration ; and,  after 
giving  it  that  attention  its  merits  appear  to  deserve,  have  become  deep- 
ly impressed  with  a full  conviction  of  the  highly  beneficial  results 
which  maybe  attained  by  the  prosecution  of  such  measures  as  are  now 
in  contemplation  ; and  freely  express  their  impression,  that  the  propo- 
sition, set  forth  in  the  order  and  memorials  referred  to  the  Committee, 
is  neither  visionary  in  theory,  unimportant  in  character,  nor  unattainable 
in  result ; but,  on  the  contrary,  appears  to  this  Committee  to  be  well 
deserving  the  countenance  and  cordial  support  of  every  friend  to  the 
' stability  of  the  social  compact,  the  increase  of  national  wealth,  the 
advancement  of  civilization,  the  promotion  of  the  arts  and  sciences, 
the  extension  of  freedom,  the  security  of  constitutional  government, 
the  improvement  of  public  morals,  the  extension  of  the  Christian  faith, 
and  thus  to  the  general  welfare  of  mankind. 

In  arriving  at  this  result,  your  Committee  have  gone  over  a wide 
field  of  observation  and  inquiry. 

The  proposition  now  under  consideration,  however  novel  it  may 
appear  to  many,  has  been,  for  six  years  past,  a subject  of  interest, 
attention  and  discussion  in  this  community. 

It  appears,  from  well  authenticated  facts,  and  many  printed  and 
written  documents,  presented  by  the  memorialists  to  the  Committee, 
that  there  has  been  a very  wide  and  full  expression  of  sentiment  from 


652 


APPENDIX. 


144 


all  classes  of  tlie  community,  without  distinction  of  party,  sect  or  pro- 
fession, in  favor  of  tlie  measures  now  in  contemplation  in  reference  to 
a Congress  or  Court  of  Nations,  for  the  amicable  adjustment  of  inter- 
national disputes.  Among  those  who  have  given  their  signatures  in 
favor  of  the  proposition,  your  Coimnittee  find  the  names  of  a great 
number  of  individuals  of  the  Irighest  rank  in  regard  to  social,  intellec- 
tual, moral,  political,  and  religious  attainment.  Among  them  are  some 
of  tliose  who  liave  filled  the  highest  executive  and  judicial  offices  of 
this  Conunonwealtli  and  of  other  States,  many  of  tlie  most  eminent  of 
our  counsellors  and  statesmen ; and  the  clergy,  the  most  intelligent 
merchants,  manufacturers,  mechanics,  and  farmers,  also  masters  of 
vessels  appear  to  liave  come  forward  in  bodies  to  enrol  their  names  in 
favor  of  this  cause.  In  our  colleges,  academies,  and  public  and  private 
schools,  its  reception  appears  to  have  been  equally  favorable ; presi- 
dents, professors,  tutors,  instructors,  and  the  students  of  the  higher 
classes  uniting  in  its  support ; in  furtherance  of  which,  it  appears, 
peace  societies  have  recently  been  formed  by  the  associated  instruc- 
tors and  students  at  many  of  our  colleges  and  literary  institutions ; 
and  orations  and  other  exercises  on  this  topic  have  been  assigned  at 
commencement  and  on  other  occasions;  and,  in  some  cases,  prizes  are 
statedly  assigned  and  medals  are  awarded  for  the  best  dissertations 
and  poems  on  the  subject  of  peace,  and  of  arbitration  as  a substitute 
for  an  appeal  to  arms.  Very  many  and  strongly  expressed  resolves 
have  been  passed  with  perfect  unanimity  in  a number  of  ecclesiastical 
and  lay  conventions,  associations,  conferences,  and  other  meetings. 
Indeed,  so  very  favorably  has  this  cause  been  received  by  the  com- 
munity at  large,  it  appears  that  there  are  about  a thousand  clergymen 
in  the  New  England,  Middle,  Western  and  Southern  States,  who  have 
given  their  names  pledging  themselves  to  preach  at  least  one  sermon 
every  year  on  this  subject;  and  it  is  introduced  in  lyceum  lectures 
and  discussions,  and  made  an  object  of  attention  in  Bible  classes,  and 
in  the  course  of  instruction  in  Sabbath  schools.  Many  of  the  most 
popular  and  talented  authors  have  proffered  their  services  in  the  pro- 
motion of  this  cause  ; and  Sabbath  school  books,  and  books  for  other 
schools  and  academies,  and  some  works  of  a still  higher  class,  having 
reference  to  its  promotion,  have  been  published,  as  is  shown  by  the 
memorialists,  not  only  in  several  of  the  New  England  States,  but  also 
at  the  South,  in  London,  Switzerland,  and  elsewhere.  It  appears, 
further,  from  facts  and  documents  presented  to  your  Committee  by  the 
memorialists,  an  extensive  correspondence  on  this  subject  has  been 
carried  on,  for  some  time  past,  between  societies  and  individuals  in 
various  parts  of  the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  France,  Switzerland, 


145 


APPENDIX. 


653 


Prussia,  Holland,  some  of  the  German  States,  and  elsewhere ; meetings 
have  been  held,  societies  formed,  addresses  made,  and  resolves  adopt- 
ed ; from  which  there  appears  to  be  a very  wide  spread  and  prevailing 
sentiment  in  favor  of  a general  cooperation  for  the  attainment  of  the 
great  and  all-important  design  of  substituting  arbitration  instead  of 
arms,  as  a last  resort,  for  tire  decision  of  international  disputes.  Sev- 
eral of  the  courts  of  Europe  have  been  addressed  on  tlie  subject  of 
peace  by  the  Count  de  Sellon. 

Your  Committee  have  deemed  it  proper,  and,  indeed,  in  a degree, 
essential,  to  the  interests  of  this  cause,  to  give  the  foregoing  very  brief 
outline  of  the  facts  laid  before  tliem,  in  regard  to  the  state  of  feeling 
apparently  prevailing  in  the  community,  both  in  this  country  and 
abroad,  in  favor  of  some  action,  on  tlie  part  of  government,  for  the 
promotion  of  the  object  now  presented  to  view.  It  cannot  be  denied, 
the  view  opens  a bright  field  of  intelligence  and  high  moral  feeling, 
unfolding  a wide  expanse  of  heart-cheering  philanthropy ; a field  ap- 
pearmg  already  ripe  for  the  harvest,  and  open  for  him  who  will,  to 
enter  in,  and  be  the  first  to  win  its  laurels,  to  pluck  its  rich  and  whole- 
some frait,  and  gatlier  to  himself  a rich  store  of  present  fame,  future 
and  fair  renown,  and  a glory  which  shall  endure,  when  the  blood- 
stained laurels  of  the  offensive  warrior  shall  have  become  faded  and 
withered,  an  object  of  the  abhorrence  rather  than  the  veneration  of 
mankind. 

May  not  the  citizens  of  this  State,  and  of  these  United  States,  be 
justly  indulged  in  the  laudable  desire  of  seeing  one  of  their  own  chief 
magistrates  the  first  to  set  foot  on  this  thrice  consecrated  ground 
May  they  not  pardonably  indulge  tlie  flattering  hope  to  see  the  name 
of  a president  of  this  republic  engraved  on  that  ever-enduring  and  con- 
secrated list,  where  stand,  and  will  for  ever  remain,  so  long  as  the 
memory  of  man  shall  endure,  the  names  of  Numa  Pompilius,  Francis 
the  first,  of  France,  Charles  the  fifth,  of  the  Low  Countries,  Ceesar 
Maximilian  the  emperor,  Henry  the  eighth,  of  England,  W.  A.  Ciervier, 
John  Sylvagius,  chancellor  of  Burgundy,  Erasmus,  Fenelon,  Henry 
the  fourth,  of  France,  and  Charles  Irene  Castel  de  St  Pierre.  If  the 
remembrance  of  these  names  is  cherished  by  the  enlightened  of  the 
present  day,  with  a feeling  approaching  to  veneration,  for  their  individ- 
ual efforts  in  the  cause  of  peace,  with  how  warm  and  heartfelt  an 
admiration  will  his  name  and  memory  be  embalmed  in  the  cherished 
recollection  of  a grateful  world,  whose  far-sighted  policy,  active  phi- 
lantliropy,  and  skilful  diplomacy,  shall  summon,  not  his  kindred,  not  his 
fellow-townsmen,  not  his  political  partisans  and  abettors,  not  the  imme- 
diate members  or  confederates  of  his  own  nation  merely,  but  the  great 


654 


APPENDIX. 


146 


family  of  nations,  to  meet  in  a friendly  council — an  august  assembly ! — 
to  consult  together  for  the  common  good,  to  promote  the  general  wel- 
fare of  mankind,  to  cause  the  sword  to  be  unsheathed,  tlie  bayonet  to 
be  unfixed,  and  to  bid  the  iron-tongued  artillery  no  longer  cause  the 
nations  to  quake  before  its  thunder.  Not  that  the  memorials  referred 
to  this  Committee  contemplate  the  total  discharge  of  your  navy,  the 
entire  dismantling  of  your  forts,  the  immediate  disbanding  of  your 
regular  troops,  or  the  disorganizing  of  your  militia.  The  sword  of 
justice  must  be  uplifted  still.  The  armed  police  of  nations  must 
remain  on  the  alert.  The  court-room  does  not  supersede  the  necessity 
of  the  watch-house.  Yet  the  trial  by  jury  has  superseded,  and  may 
well  supplant  the  trial  by  combat ; and  arbitration,  or  a Court  of 
Nations,  may  be  made  the  final  resort,  instead  of  an  appeal  to  arms. 

In  arriving  at  this  conclusion,  your  Committee  are  happy  in  finding 
the  opinion  tliey  have  been  led  to  adopt,  founded  on  the  result  of  their 
own  investigation,  supported  by  the  deliberately  and  publicly  expressed 
opinions  of  others,  for  whose  decision,  in  regard  to  a subject  of  this 
nature,  they  entertain  no  light  regard. 

At  a former  session  of  tlie  Legislature  of  this  State,  the  Committee 
to  whom  was  referred  a petition,  from  one  of  the  abovenamed  me- 
morialists, on  the  subject  now  under  the  consideration  of  your  Com- 
mittee, in  reporting,  as  they  did,  in  favor  of  the  prayer  of  the  petition, 
and  unanimously  recommending  certain  resolutions  in  relation  thereto, 
whicli  report  was  accepted,  and  the  resolutions  adopted  in  the  Senate, 
by  a vote  of  nineteen  to  five,  have  expressed  an  opinion  to  which  your 
Committee  are  disposed  cordially  to  respond.  They  say,  “ It  is  thought 
by  the  Committee  that  some  umpire,  either  temporary  or  permanent, 
by  which  disputes  between  nations  may  be  decided,  is  by  no  means  a 
visionary  project  Such  an  umpire  will  certainly  be  practicable, 
whenever  public  opinion,  in  civilized  nations,  shall  be  sufficiently 
enlightened  to  sanction  it”  The  Committee  further  remark:  “It  is 
believed  that  the  Legislature  of  this  Commonwealth  would  not  go 
far  in  advance  of  public  opinion,  by  some  declarative  act  favorable 
to  this  pacific  mode  of  tenninating  the  controversies  of  nations.  Such 
a declaration,  if  not  utterly  destitute  of  ground  to  stand  upon, 
would  be  at  least  harmless ; and  no  man  of  high  moral  feeling,  or 
moral  courage,  can  hesitate  how  to  act,  when  the  alternative  presented 
is,  on  the  one  hand,  the  possibility  of  accomplishing  an  incalculable 
public  good,  and,  on  the  other,  the  danger  of  encountering  the  chilling 
incredulity  or  heartless  raillery  of  those  who  do  not  know  how  to 
appreciate  his  motives.”  The  Committee  further  say:  “If  a public 
attempt  is  ever  to  be  made  to  bring  war  into  discredit,  and  to  devise 


147 


APPENDIX. 


655 


some  amicable  mode  of  settling  disputes  between  nations,  it  may  be 
well  now  for  some  public  body  to  feel  the  way.  And  no  where  can 
this  beginning  be  more  suitable  than  in  Massachusetts.”  And  in 
speaking  of  tlie  effects  to  flow  from  the  measure,  the  Committee  say  : 
“ It  will  show  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  that  when  solicited 
to  express  an  opinion  upon  a great  national  subject  of  vital  concern, 
a subject  which  can  excite  no  conflict  of  party  passions,  we  do  not  turn 
a deaf  ear  to  the  call ; that  we  do  not  maintain  a heartless  silence, 
but  return  a kind  and  generous  response  to  the  voice  of  those  noble 
philanthropists,  who  would  save  mankind  from  evils  into  which  those 
in  times  gone  by  have  rushed  headlong,  and  which  they  have  been 
obliged  to  rue  when  it  was  too  late  to  escape  them.”  In  these  sen- 
timents, your  Committee  think,  there  is  a magnanimity  which  will 
insure  a ready  and  full  response  from  every  American  breast.  Such 
sentiments,  they  think,  cannot  be  too  widely  disseminated. 

The  Committee  of  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Permanent  and 
Universal  Peace,  established  at  London,  in  their  seventeenth  annual 
report,  speaking  of  the  proposition  now  under  the  consideration  of 
your  Committee,  say : “ What  is  there  in  this  proposal  that  does  not 
commend  itself  to  the  good  sense  of  every  man  ? It  is  only  an  exten- 
sion of  that  principle  of  legislation,  which  settles  private  disputes  by 
arbitration  or  courts  of  law,  instead  of  leaving  every  one  to  right  him- 
self, which  might  result  in  violence  and  murder.”  After  speaking  of 
the  doings  in  this  countr}^,  and  in  Switzerland,  relative  to  this  measure, 
they  say  : “ Your  Committee  have  watched,  with  a lively  interest,  these 
proceedings  of  their  brethren  and  fellow-laborers  in  America  and 
Geneva ; their  own  labors  have  not  yet  been  in  this  direction,  though 
they  have,  for  some  time  past,  held  themselves  in  readiness,  at  a suita- 
ble opportunity,  to  bring  this  subject  more  immediately  under  the 
consideration  of  tlie  British  public  and  of  the  government.”  At  the 
eighteenth  annual  meeting  of  the  London  Peace  Society,  the  subject 
of  a Court  of  Nations  was  discussed,  and  the  following  resolution  was 
moved  and  carried:  “That  the  continuance  of  peace  calls  for  our 
grateful  acknowledgments  to  Almighty  God,  and  we  sincerely  hope 
that  the  experience  of  its  advantages  may  induce  the  powers  of  Europe 
and  America  to  endeavor  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  war,  by  the 
adoption  of  a peaceful  and  rational  mode  of  settling  their  differences 
by  arbitration.”  This  meeting,  and  the  subject  discussed  at  it,  appears 
to  have  been  noticed  with  commendation  by  the  British  press.  As  an 
instance  of  the  tone  assumed  on  the  occasion,  the  following  remarks, 
from  the  London  Mercantile  Journal,  will  not  be  read  without  interest. 
After  speaking  of  the  rapid  progress  of  the  principles  and  policy  of 


656 


APPENDIX. 


148 


peace,  it  is  remarked:  “ In  a mercantile  point  of  view,  this  subject  is 
very  important,  and  every  mercantile  man  should  be  a member  of  the 
Peace  Society.  What  becomes  of  trade  during  the  existence  of  war  ? 
Is  not  war  a total  interruption  of,  and  a complete  curse  to  trade  ? 
And  in  this  country,  whicli  is  a commercial  country,  ought  above  all 
to  study  the  tilings  which  make  for  peace,  as  upon  peace  commerce 
depends,  and  upon  commerce  England  depends.  Reason  and  experi- 
ence, and  not  guns  and  swords,  are  the  best  arbiters  between  man  and 
man,  and  ought,  indeed,  to  be  the  only  arbiters  between  rational  beings. 

Physical  contests  are  the  characteristics  of  brutes,  which  we  do  not 
allow  to  possess  reason.  War  has  hitherto  been  the  game  at  which 
kings  and  generals  have  played,  whilst  the  people  have  found  them  in 
money  wherewitli  to  carry  it  on;  but  the  people  are  becoming  wiser, 
and  choose  ratlier  to  keep  their  money  in  their  pockets.  But  if  the 
principles  of  tlie  Peace  Society  were  universal,  there  would  never  need 
be  any  war,  even  of  self-defence,  because  there  never  would  be  any 
aggression.  In  the  beautiful  imagery  of  eastern  poetiy,  men  would 
convert  their  swords  into  ploughshares.  Europe  has  now  long  been  at 
peace,  and  may  she  continue  to  be  so ! and  we  expect  that  the  diffusion 
of  knowledge  will  increasingly  secure  its  unnumbered  blessings  to  all 
mankind.  Our  national  debt  of  eiglit  hundred  millions  is  a monument 
to  the  folly,  false  glory,  mischief,  and  curse  of  war.  Nations,  as  they 
become  enlightened,  will  survey  tliis  monument,  and  read  its  inscrip- 
tion ; and  the  experience  on  this  subject,  which  has  cost  us  so  much, 
will  be  given  to  them  for  notliing.  Such  is  our  own  deep  conviction 
of  the  unnecessariness,  folly,  ruination  and  mischief  of  all  war ; and 
such  our  persuasion  of  the  advantages,  wisdom  and  glory  of  peace,  that 
we  say,  ‘success  to  the  Peace  Society — may  all  society  throughout 
both  hemispheres  of  this  well-peopled  world,  become  one  great  Peace 
Society and  say  amen  to  the  malediction,  ‘ cursed  be  the  hand  that 
again  kindles  the  fires  of  war !’  ” 

Your  Committee  have  quoted  tliese  remarks  thus  at  large,  believing 
tliem  to  be  of  no  liglit  import  in  this  connection,  conveying,  as  we  have 
reason  to  tliink  they  do,  the  sentiments  of  a great  and  highly  respectable 
portion  of  the  more  intelligent  classes  of  the  British  public ; and  for 
the  same  reason  we  are  gi'atified  to  see  the  publication  of  the  following 
sentiment  in  the  Quarterly  Journal  of  the  British  Peace  Society:  it  is 
from  a Hartford  County  Report.  “ The  benevolent  proposal  of  institut- 
ing a high  court,  to  which  may  be  referred  for  equitable  and  final  ad- 
justment all  international  disputes,  deserves  the  serious  consideration 
of  tlie  ‘powers  that  be,’  and  of  every  friend  of  peace.  It  is  hoped,  that 
measures  may  be  adopted  in  different  countries,  to  call  forth  a public 


149 


APPENDIX. 


657 


expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  people,  and  requests,  to  their  respect- 
ive governments  to  adopt  this  specific  measure.”  The  measure  has 
been  approved  at  various  public  meetings  in  different  parts  of  Great 
Britain.  To  select  one  instance  from  many.  At  a meeting  of  the 
Newcastle  auxiliary  to  the  London  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Per- 
manent and  Universal  Peace,  one  of  the  speakers  observed,  “he 
wished  the  Society  possessed  the  means  of  extending  their  principles 
into  other  countries,  and  then  he  trusted  that  the  system  of  national 
arbitration  would  become  matured  and  generally  acted  on.”  Senti- 
ments of  individuals  and  societies  on  the  continent,  in  France,  Geneva, 
and  elsewhere,  equally  friendly  to  the  measure,  have  been  laid  before 
your  Committee,  but  they  deem  further  citation  on  this  point  unneces- 
sary. 

Your  Committee,  consistently  with  what  they  deem  their  duty  on 
an  occasion  like  the  present,  and  as  an  organ  of  the  highest  representa- 
tive body  in  a community  so  enlightened  as  that  comprising  the  citizens 
of  this  Commonwealth,  cannot  withhold  their  hearty  approbation  of  the 
signal  instance  of  triumphant  benevolence  recently  given  by  his  maj- 
esty William  IV,  in  his  successful  proffer  of  friendly  mediation,  during 
the  recent  misunderstanding  between  the  governments  of  the  United 
States  and  France ; a mediation  most  magnanimous  in  its  spirit,  and 
most  honorable  to  the  British  king,  as  the  monarch  of  a powerful,  highly 
civilized,  intelligent  and  Christian  people : a mediation  most  happily 
and  fully  successful  in  the  attainment  of  the  unspeakably  important 
object  in  view ; and  hence  demanding  the  public  and  grateful  acknowl- 
edgments of  tliose  who  were  so  greatly  benefited  by  it.  A mediation 
indicating,  in  its  origin,  acceptance  and  results,  a radical  change  and 
permanent  advance  in  public  sentiment,  which  cannot  but  be  regarded 
as  most  auspicious  to  the  dearest  interests  of  mankind ; and  also  as  clearly 
demonstrating  the  practicability,  provided  the  attention  of  the  several 
nations  can  be  called  to  the  subject,  of  devising,  introducing  and  es- 
tablishing some  mode  of  determining  disputes  between  civilized  nations 
other  than  that  of  an  appeal  to  arms.  In  fine,  a mediation,  which, 
when  the  bonds  of  amity  were  broken,  when  the  ultimate  stand  had 
been  taken,  when  the  doors  of  reconciliation  were  closing,  when  a 
hostile  attitude  was  already  assumed  and  forces  were  collecting,  and 
arms  were  burnishing,  and  navies  were  manned  and  fitting  out  for  ser- 
vice, bid  that  phantom  falsely  styled  national  honor  to  disappear,  caused 
reason  to  resume  her  seat,  allowed  justice  to  uplift  her  scales,  and,  in 
so  doing,  prevented  an  astonished  universe  from  beholding,  and  disbur- 
dened the  pen  of  the  future  historian  from  recording,  yet  other  bloody 
acts,  revolting  spectacles,  and  dismal  legends  to  be  chronicled  with 
83 


658 


APPENDIX. 


150 


those  of  Ostend,  Aboukir  and  Alexandria,  the  Rhine  reddened  and 
swollen  with  the  gory  torrents  successively  poured  into  it  from  Tour- 
nay,  Kayserslautern,  Josselies,  Cologne,  Manheim,  Mayence,  Frankcn- 
thal  and  Fribourg,  the  slaughter  of  tlie  Burmese,  the  desolations  of  the 
Carnatic,  the  massacre  at  Scio,  the  battle  of  Borodino,  the  passage  of 
the  Beresina,  and,  finally,  the  field  of  Waterloo:  acts  which, — while 
causing  blood  to  flow  in  torrents,  depriving  old  age  of  its  prop,  and 
infancy  of  its  provider,  extending  desolation  over  sea  and  land,  and  in- 
troducing wretchedness  to  the  fireside  of  the  hovel,  paralyzing  the  arm 
of  industry  abroad,  and  agonizing  the  heart  at  home  ; aiming  a death- 
blow at  commerce,  manufactures,  and  the  useful  arts, — would  never- 
theless lay  claim  to  be  deemed  honorable  when  committed  by  nations* 
though  they  would  be  universally  denounced  as  barbarous  and  brutish, 
if  done  by  individuals.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  your  Committee  ask, 
foreseeing  these  acts  and  dreading  these  then  impending  evils,  if  joy 
did  not  thrill  every  American  heart,  on  hearing  the  noble  offer  of  his 
august  majesty  the  king  of  England,  to  become  the  friendly  arbiter 
between  the  governments  of  France  and  the  United  States  ? two  nations 
whose  friendly  intercourse  and  mutual  good  offices  had,  since  the  very 
commencement  of  our  existence  as  a nation,  been  cemented  by 
the  golden  chain  of  commerce.  A noble  umpirage ! which  may 
have  prevented  not  only  the  estrangement  of  two  most  friendly  nations, 
but  also  the  waste  of  millions  of  money  and  the  destruction  of  thousands 
of  human  lives,  in  addition  to  the  blow,  fatal  it  might  have  been,  indict- 
ed on  the  advance  of  liberal  principles  and  the  establishment  of  free 
institutions,  and  setting  the  world  one  more  injurious  example  of  the 
baneful  custom  of  engaging  in  war  for  the  assertion  of  right.  Your 
Committee  feel  unfeigned  delight  in  recurring  to  this  most  magnani- 
mous instance  of  enlightened  policy  in  the  government  of  that  country 
in  whose  just  fame  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  will  ever  feel  a 
pride,  regarding  and  cherishing  it  in  memory  as  the  mother  country,  in 
whose  bosom  was  fostered  that  attachment  to  liberal  principles,  and  that 
love  of  freedom,  to  which  this  republic  is  indebted  for  its  being.' 

Your  Committee  have  thus  laid  before  you  the  results  of  their  inqui- 
ries in  this  branch  of  the  investigation  assigned  to  them,  from  a persua- 
sion that  the  information  elicited  in  reference  to  this  subject  will  be 
regarded  with  more  than  ordinary  interest  by  every  one  accustomed  to 
measure,  with  a practised  eye,  the  movement  of  public  sentiment  and 
feeling  ; and  they  have  also  been  actuated  in  giving  the  foregoing  ex- 
position from  a deep  and  pervading  sense  of  the  solemn  responsibility 
under  which  they  lie  in  having  had  committed  to  them  a subject  which, 
in  their  view,  yields  to  no  other  of  past  or  present  time,  in  reference  to 


151 


APPENDIX. 


659 


the  varied,  extensive,  and  all-absorbing  interests  involved  in  its  decision. 
They  regard  the  ultimate  result  of  the  proposed  measure,  as  one  which, 
if  the  measure  be  now  adopted  and  carried  forward  by  tlie  Legislature 
of  this  Commonwealth,  and  if  it  be  countenanced  and  carried  into  ex- 
ecution by  the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  and  eventually  concurred 
in  by  the  different  powers  who  may  be  invited  to  cooperate  to  that  end, 
will  eventually  confer  on  Massachusetts,  on  the  United  States,  and  on 
the  age  in  which  it  is  achieved,  a renown  whose  duration  will  be  coeval 
with  the  existence  of  our  race.  With  this  inadequate  view  of  tlie  sub- 
ject, the  Committee  unanimously  recommend  the  following  resolutions, 
for  the  adoption  of  the  Legislature. 

Per  order  of  the  Committee. 

Stephen  Fairbanks,  Chairman. 


ffiommontDealti)  of  iI3assacf)usEtts. 


In  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-seven. 

Resolves  in  relation  to  a Congress  of  JVaiions. 

Resolved,  That  the  resort  to  war,  to  settle  questions  of  national  profit 
or  honor,  is  a practice  derived  from  the  barbarism  of  former  ages,  and 
inconsistent  with  the  enlightened  philanthropy  of  the  present,  still  more 
adverse  to  the  benign  principles  of  Christianity,  productive  of  extensive 
distractions,  misery  and  corruptions,  and  usually  inefficient  for  the 
purposes  for  which  it  is  commenced,  and  hence  it  is  incumbent  on  all 
civilized  communities  to  devise  measures  for  its  suppression. 

Resolved,  That  the  institution  of  a Congress  or  Court  of  Nations 
appears  to  be,  at  present,  tlie  best  practical  method  by  which  the 
disputes  between  nations  can  be  adjusted,  and  the  appeal  to  arms 
avoided. 

Resolved,  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  Executive  of  the  United 
States,  to  open  a negotiation  with  such  other  governments  as,  in  its 
wisdom,  it  may  deem  proper,  with  a view  to  effect  so  important  an 
arrangement. 

Resolved,  That  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth 
be  requested  to  transmit  a copy  of  this  Report,  and  the  accompanying 
Resolutions,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  Executive 
of  each  of  the  States,  to  be  communicated  to  the  Legislatures  of  the 
several  States,  inviting  their  expression  of  sentiment  and  cooperation  in 
favor  of  the  end  in  view. 


660 


APPENDIX. 


162 


In  searcliing  the  records  of  the  General  Court  of  the  State  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, I find  the  following  resolves,  passed  in  1838,  of  which  I was 
ignorant  before,  and  add  them  in  this  place. 

©ommontoealt!)  of  J^iassaclmsetts. 

In  the  year  of  02ir  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-eight. 


Resolves  in  relation  to  a Congress  of  JVations. 

Resolved,  That  offensive  war  is  incompatible  with  the  true  spirit  of 
Christianity. 

Resolved,  That  the  great  importance  of  the  subject  renders  it  the 
duty  of  all  civilized  communities  to  unite  in  the  adoption  of  any 
practicable  plan,  calculated  to  effect  so  noble  an  object  as  the  abolition 
of  war,  and  the  preservation  of  peace  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

Resolved,  That  the  institution  of  a Congress  of  Nations  for  the  pur- 
pose of  framing  a code  of  international  law,  and  establishing  a high 
court  of  arbitration  for  the  settlement  of  controversies  between  nations, 
is  a scheme  worthy  of  the  careful  attention  and  consideration  of  all 
enlightened  governments. 

Resolved,  That  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth 
be  requested  to  transmit  a copy  of  these  resolves,  with  the  accompany- 
ing report,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  Executive 
of  each  of  the  States,  to  be  communicated  to  their  respective  Legisla- 
tures, inviting  their  cooperation  in  the  proposed  object. 

House  of  Representatives,  April  25,  1838. — Passed. 

Robert  C.  Winthrop,  Speaker. 

In  Senate,  April  25,  1838. — Passed. 

Myron  Lawrence,  President. 

April  25,  1838. — Approved. 

Edward  Everett. 


153 


APPENDIX. 


661 


No.  7. 

First  Petition  to  Congress,  presented  by  the  Mew  York  Peace  Society,  the 
American  Peace  Society,  the  Vermont  Peace  Society,  and  many  other 
individuals,  the  members  of  no  peace  society. 

To  the  Honorable,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled  on  the  first  Monday 
in  December,  1837. 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society,  and  other 
individuals  friendly  to  the  Peace  cause,  respectfully  present  the 
following  Petition : 

That  your  honorable  body  accede  to  the  proposition  of  the  Mexican 
Congress,  as  couched  in  the  following  terms,  contained  in  a decree  of 
that  Congress  dated  May  20th,  1837,  to  wit : 

“ The  government  is  hereby  authorized  to  compromise  the  claims 
which  the  government  of  the  United  States  has  instituted,  or  may 
hereafter  institute ; and  those  in  which  they  cannot  agree  may  he  sub- 
mitted to  the  decision  of  a friendly  power,  the  United  States  of  America 
agreeing  thereto.” 

Your  petitioners  feel,  that  it  would  greatly  derogate  from  the  high 
character  hitherto  sustained  by  this  republic,  to  decline  so  honorable  a 
proposal  as  that  contained  in  the  foregoing  article ; and,  on  tlie  other 
hand,  that  it  would  redound  to  its  highest  honor,  promptly  and  frankly 
to  comply  with  ik 

It  is  a universally  admitted  proposition,  that  a disinterested  party  is 
more  likely  to  decide  impartially  in  relation  to  a dispute,  than  the  par- 
ties interested ; and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  men  in  their  social  capacity 
have  consented  to  the  establishment  of  judicial  tribunals,  to  which  to 
refer  such  of  their  individual  disputes  as  they  cannot  satisfactorily 
adjust  between  themselves.  For  the  same  reason,  in  the  opinion  of 
your  petitioners,  ought  international  disputes  of  a similar  kind  to  be 
referred  to  a disinterested  party.  And  they  are  the  more  encouraged 
to  hope,  that  this  petition  will  be  favorably  received  by  your  honorable 
body,  from  the  consideration  of  the  fact,  that  the  principle  of  arbitration 
has  been  adopted  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  several 
instances  already,  whereby  the  soundness  of  that  principle  has  been 
clearly  recognized,  and  its  compatibility  with  the  honor,  dignity,  and 
rights  of  the  nation  virtually  admitted. 

Your  petitioners  take  this  opportunity  to  pray  your  honorable  body 
to  adopt  the  principle  of  reference  to  a third  party  of  such  international 


662 


APPENDIX. 


154 


disputes  as  cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  by  the  parties  themselves,  as 
an  invariable  rule  of  action,  instead  of  an  occasional  one.  They  can 
see  no  possible  reason  why  it  should  not  be  the  rule  at  all  times,  as 
well  as  on  particular  occasions.  There  is  no  time  that  a party  to  a 
dispute  is  not  less  likely  to  decide  impartially  in  relation  to  its  merits, 
than  a disinterested  party  would  be  ; and,  consequently,  there  is  always 
the  same  reason  why  parties,  whether  individual  or  international,  should 
refer  to  arbitration  such  disputes  as  they  are  unable  to  adjust  amicably 
between  themselves. 

Your  petitioners  would  further  pray  your  honorable  body,  in  pur- 
suance of  this  principle,  to  send  forth  a proposal  to  the  various 
governments  of  the  world,  to  unite  witli  your  honorable  body  in  the 
establishment  of  a great  international  board  of  arbitration,  or  a Con- 
gress of  Nations,  to  which  to  refer  international  disputes;  and,  also, 
for  the  purpose  of  digesting  and  preparing  a regular  code  of  interna- 
tional law,  obligatory  on  such  nations  as  may  afterwards  adopt  it. 

If  tlie  principle  of  arbitration  is  to  become  the  order  of  the  day,  then 
there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  best  mode ; and  if  tliere  is  to  be  a 
law  of  nations  at  all,  it  is  equally  clear  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of 
its  being  embodied  in  a regular  code.  No  government,  engrossed  with 
its  own  affairs,  can  devote  tlie  time  requisite  to  tlie  thorough  examina- 
tion of  the  various  international  disputes ; and  hence  the  necessity  for 
the  appointment  of  a board  of  arbitrators  for  the  purpose,  who  would 
be  able  to  devote  to  the  business  their  undivided  attention.  And 
besides  this,  a board  of  arbitrators,  composed  of  delegates  from  various 
nations,  would,  by  containing  within  itself  a counterpoise  of  interests, 
be  more  likely  to  give  an  impartial  decision,  than  would  any  single 
government.  With  regard  to  the  fonnation  of  a code  of  international 
law,  all  the  reasons  that  can  be  assigned  for  the  enactment  of  law  in 
general,  are  equally  applicable  to  the  enactment  of  an  international 
code.  The  principles  of  law  need  to  be  settled  and  defined.  For 
want  of  this,  in  the  case  of  the  law  of  nations,  many  wars  have  occur- 
red. And  who  so  suitable  to  prepare  an  international  code  of  law,  as 
an  international  tribunal  of  the  kind  contemplated  ? Assuredly,  it  is 
not  competent  for  one  nation  to  decide  what  shall  be  the  law  for  all  the 
nations  of  the  world,  in  their  intercourse  with  one  another.  Nothing 
short  of  an  international  tribunal  is,  in  the  opinion  of  your  petitioners, 
competent  to  the  preparation  of  an  international  code  of  law — and 
competent  to  the  explication  and  application  of  that  law,  after  its 
enactment,  in  cases  of  international  dispute.  And  yet,  your  petitioners 
do  not  propose  a measure  which  would  be  any  infringement,  even  the 
least,  on  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  nations.  As  they  have- 


155 


APPENDIX. 


663 


already  hinted,  they  propose  only,  that  this  law  shall  be  obligatory  on 
those  nations  that  may  adopt  it,  after  its  enactment  by  the  tribunal. 

Nor  do  your  petitioners  propose,  that  that  tribunal  be  clothed  with 
power  to  enforce  its  decisions,  but  that  it  rely  for  its  efficiency  solely  on 
the  impartiality  and  correctness  of  those  decisions,  and  the  honor  and 
justice  of  the  parties  concerned.  And  when  your  petitioners  consider 
the  tenacity  with  which  nations  adhere  to  the  point  of  honor,  and  that 
they  never  embark  in  war  without  a plausible  excuse,  they  are  forced 
to  the  conclusion,  that  a righteous  decision  of  an  international  dispute, 
emanating  from  an  authorized,  international  tribunal,  in  accordance 
with  an  international  code  of  law,  accompanied  by  the  reasons  for  that 
decision,  and  appealing  solely  to  national  honor  and  justice,  could  not 
fail  to  meet  with  a favorable  reception  by  the  parties.  To  suppose 
otherwise,  would  be  to  suppose,  that  those  vast  portions  of  mankind 
denominated  nations,  that  stand  so  much  on  their  dignity  and  honor, 
have  less  pretension  to  those  noble  qualities,  than  have  two  common 
citizens  who  refer  a dispute  to  arbitrators  in  the  ordinary  concerns  of 
private  life,  and  who  would  consider  themselves  eternally  disgraced, 
were  they  to  disregard  a fair  decision.  Indeed,  to  suppose  that  nations 
would  not  heed  a decision  of  the  kind,  would  be  an  impeachment  of 
their  high  character,  and  an  insult  to  their  fair  fame. 

But  your  petitioners  do  not  stake  their  cause  on  the  certainty  of  the 
efficiency  of  the  plan  proposed.  They  would  say,  that  if  there  is  even 
a tendency  in  the  scheme  to  prevent  such  an  evil  as  war,  nations  ought 
to  adopt  it.  Nay,  they  will  go  further,  and  say,  that  if  there  is  a remote 
probability  of  its  preventing  a single  war ; yea,  if  it  is  not  demonstrable 
that  it  will  have  no  tendency  to  prevent  war ; nations  ought  to  niahe 
tried  of  it,  to  say  the  least  The  nation  refusing  to  participate  in  such 
an  attempt  at  the  pacification  of  the  world,  would  manifest  no  desire  to 
avoid  war,  and  could  no  longer  denominate  it  its  last  resort.  On  the 
other  hand,  should  the  trial  of  the  scheme  be  made,  and  even  prove 
abortive,  nations  will  not  have  labored  in  vain:  they  will  thereby  have 
manifested  some  disposition  to  avoid  war,  and  could  then  with  some 
appearance  of  truth  denominate  it  their  last  resort — which  otherwise 
they  could  not  do. 

Your  petitioners  feel  desirous,  that  this  country  should  not  only 
combine  with  others  in  promoting  the  great  and  glorious  scheme  under 
consideration,  but  that  she  should  lead  the  way,  by  sending  forth  the 
GREAT  PROPOSAL  for  a Congress  of  Nations,  to  the  various  nations  of 
the  earth.  They  would  fain  see  their  own  country  stand  forth  in 
advance  of  all  others  in  this  great,  this  glorious,  this  heaven-born 
enterprise ; presenting  to  the  admiring  view  of  the  whole  universe  a 


664 


APPENDIX. 


156 


spectacle  of  moral  grandeur  and  sublimity  unequalled  in  the  career  of 
nations,  and  entitled  to  imperishable  renown.  Fain  would  they  see 
the  names  of  their  rulers  inscribed  on  the  same  page  of  immortality 
with  those  of  a Numa  Pompilius,  an  Antoninus  Pius,  a Leopold  of 
Lon-aine,  a Walpole,  a Fleury,  a Maximilian  II,  a Rudolph  II,  a Ferdi- 
nand VI,  a Robert  I,  and  a William  Penn,  and  not  on  that  page  of 
infamy  crimsoned  with  human  blood. 

Your  petitioners  would  be  among  the  last,  to  base  their  cause  on 
any  ground  but  that  of  its  own  intrinsic  merits.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
always  gratifying  to  the  friends  of  a good  cause,  to  know  that  it  has 
the  countenance  and  support  of  the  wise  and  the  good. 

[Here  follow  extracts  from  the  first  and  second  report  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  Massachusetts,  wliich  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat] 

Your  Petitioners  also  find  the  sage  Franklin  holding  language  like 
the  following : “ We  daily  make  great  improvements  in  natural,  there 
is  one  I wish  to  see  in  moral,  philosophy ; — the  discovery  of  a plan  tliat 
would  induce  and  oblige  nations  to  settle  their  disputes,  without  first 
cutting  one  another’s  throats.  When  will  human  nature  be  sufficiently 
improved  to  see  the  advantage  of  this?”  “Wonderful,”  says  the 
illustrious  Jefferson,  “has  been  the  progress  of  human  improvement  in 
other  respects.  Let  us  hope,  then,  that  the  law  of  nature,  which  makes 
virtuous  conduct  produce  benefit,  and  vice  loss,  to  the  agent,  in  the 
long  run ; which  has  sanctioned  the  common  principle  that  honesty  is 
the  best  policy ; will  in  time  influence  the  proceedings  of  nations  as 
well  as  individuals ; that  we  shall  at  length  be  sensible,  that  war  is  an 
instrument  entirely  inefficient  toward  redressing  wrong ; that  it  multi- 
plies, instead  of  indemnifying  losses.  These  truths  are  palpable,  and 
must,  in  the  progress  of  time,  have  their  influence  on  the  minds  and 
conduct  of  nations.” 

But  your  petitioners  forbear  from  further  quotation.  Enough  has 
been  produced  to  show,  that  were  the  rulers  of  the  world  such  men  as 
our  Franklins  and  Jeffersons,  this  project  would  not  want  supporters. 
And  could  those  venerable,  patriot  sages  revisit  the  earth,  and  once 
more  take  their  seats  in  tlie  American  Congress,  we  doubt  not  that 
they  would  be  among  the  foremost  to  rise  up  in  your  midst,  and  advo- 
cate the  adoption  of  the  measure  recommended  in  this  petition.  May 
we  not  hope,  that  your  honorable  body  will,  by  the  adoption  of  a 
similar  course,  prove  yourselves  in  this  respect  a Congress  of  Franklins 
and  Jeffersons — a Congress  of  sages  and  pliilanthropists — a Congress 
acting  for  the  liighest  interests,  not  of  a single  nation  at  a particular 
period,  but  of  tlie  whole  human  family  henceforth  to  the  end  of  time  ? 

That  tlie  custom  of  war  has  hitherto  prevailed,  is  no  reason  for  its 


157 


APPENDIX. 


665 


longer  continuance.  We  of  the  present  generation  claim  to  live  in  an 
age  of  superior  light,  in  which  customs  are  brought  to  the  test  of 
reason.  This  touchstone  needs  but  to  be  applied  to  the  custom  of  war, 
to  procure  at  once  its  abolition.  It  is  a custom  altogether  unsuited  to 
the  high  state  of  civilization  of  the  present  period.  Time  it  is,  tliat 
some  general  movement  were  made  among  tlie  nations,  to  bring  it  to  a 
termination.  Suffice  it  to  have  outlived  customs  far  less  barbarous, 
which  have  disappeared  before  tlie  briglit  beams  of  civilization,  like 
tlie  mists  of  morning  before  the  ascending  sun.  Too  long  has  this 
hydra  been  permitted  to  rear  his  homd  crests  amid  scenes  of  civiliza- 
tion and  refinement  Too  long  have  the  nations  of  Christendom, 
professing  to  be  governed  by  a peaceful  religion,  been  subjected  by 
their  warlike  policy  to  the  taunts  of  the  Jew,  the  scorn  of  the  Mussul- 
man, and  the  reproach  of  the  heathen.  The  rulers  of  Christendom 
owe  it  to  themselves,  tliey  owe  it  to  the  religion  they  profess,  they  owe 
it  to  the  human  race,  to  change  at  once  and  for  ever  theu'  international 
policy,  by  the  adoption  of  a pacific  mode  of  adjusting  international 
disputes.  Nor  can  they,  with  aU  the  light  that  is  blazing  on  them,  any 
longer  forbear  to  adopt  such  a measure,  without  incurring  the  most 
a-\vful  guilt.  War  that  is  not  indeed  the  last  resort,  is  wholesale 
murder ; and  until  evejy  probable  expedient  has  been  resorted  to,  to 
prevent  it,  it  is  not  the  last  resort.  Your  petitioners,  therefore,  feel, 
that  unless  the  governments  of  tlie  world,  and  especially  of  Cliristen- 
doin,  will  make  a sincere  trial  of  the  principle  of  arbitration  for  the 
adjustment  of  tlieir  disputes,  and  thereby  bring  its  efficiency  to  the  full 
test,  they  cannot  embark  in  war  without  guilt  of  the  most  fearful  mag- 
nitude, and  the  deepest  die — the  guilt  of  the  blood  of  nations  ! 
And  they  further  feel,  that  it  would  not  only  be  an  immortal  honor  to 
the  government  that  might  move  first  in  this  great  undertaking,  by 
making  a proposition  of  the  kind  to  others,  but  that  no  government  is 
justifiable  in  waiting  for  another  to  make  the  first  movement  And, 
finally,  they  feel  that  the  government  of  this  country,  above  all  others, 
is  under  obligation  to  be  the  foremost  in  this  instance.  Our  institutions, 
our  policy,  the  genius  of  our  country,  our  high  pretensions  to  superior- 
ity in  all  that  is  great  and  ennobling,  demand  it  at  our  hands.  And 
your  petitioners  do  most  fervently  hope,  that  your  honorable  body  will 
not  turn  a deaf  ear  to  the  call,  but  that,  by  your  timely  and  favorable 
action  in  the  case,  you  will  prove  to  the  world  that  all  these  claims  to 
transcendent  excellence  are  not  in  vain. 


8-1 


666 


APPENDIX. 


158 


No.  8. 

Report  on  the  foregoing  Petition. 

]\Ir.  Legare,  from  tire  ComiTiittee  on  Foreign  AffairS;  made  the 
following  REPORT : 

The  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  to  whom  was  refeiTed  the  memorial 
of  tire  New  York  Peace  Society,  and  otlier  individuals  friendly  to 
the  peace  cause,  report  as  follows : 

The  prayer  of  tlie  memorialists  is  twofold.  They  desire,  in  the  first 
place,  that  our  differences  with  Mexico  should  be  referred  to  the 
arbitration  of  a third  power.  The  House  is  already  informed  that,  to 
tliis  extent,  tlieir  petition  has  been  answered  and  fulfilled  by  the 
Executive — our  claims  upon  that  govermnent  having,  at  the  instance 
of  the  latter,  been  submitted  to  an  umpire  of  its  own  choosing.  So  far, 
therefore,  as  the  object  of  the  memorialists  was  to  bring  about  this 
practical  result  in  a public  interest  of  great  unportance  and  pressing 
exigency,  it  has  been  accomplished,  no  doubt,  to  tlieir  entire  satis- 
faction. 

But  they  do  not  stop  here.  They  proceed  to  recommend  to  Congress 
that  it  “ adopt  the  principle  of  reference  to  a third  power  of  such  inter- 
national disputes  as  cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  by  the  parties  them- 
selves, as  an  invariable  rule  of  action,  instead  of  an  occasional  one.” 
And  they  further  pray  that,  “ in  pursuance  of  this  principle,  a proposal 
be  sent  forth  by  this  govermnent  to  those  of  other  nations,  that  they 
would  unite  with  it  in  tlie  establishment  of  a great  international  hoard 
of  arbitration,  or  a Co7igress  of  JVations,  to  which  to  refer  international 
disputes  ; and  also  for  the  purpose  of  digesting  and  preparing  a regular 
code  of  interncdional  law,  obligatory  on  such  nations  as  may  afterwards 
adopt  it.”  They  tliinlc  tliat  this  board  of  arbitrators  should  be  composed 
of  delegates  from  various  nations,  and  that  to  this  board  should  be 
confided  the  forming  a code  of  international  law. 

It  is  proper  to  observe,  however,  tliat  they  do  not  propose  this  code 
“shall  be  binding  upon  any  nations  which  may  not  willingly  adopt  it, 
after  its  enactment  by  the  tribunal ;”  nor  do  tliey  propose  that  that 
tribunal  be  clotlied  with  power  to  enforce  its  decisions ; but  that  it  shall 
rely  for  its  efficiency  solely  on  the  impartiality  and  correctness  of  those 
decisions,  and  the  honor  and  justice  of  the  parties  concerned. 

The  petitioners  conclude,  by  expressing  a desire  that  this  country 
should  not  only  combine  with  others  in  what  tliey  characterize  as  “the 
great  and  glorious  scheme  under  consideration,”  but  that  they  “ should 


159 


APPENDIX. 


667 


lead  the  way,  by  sending  forth  the  proposal  for  a Congress  of  Nations  ” 
to  the  various  governments  of  the  civilized  world. 

The  Committee  have  been  earnestly  pressed  to  take  this  latter  prayer 
of  the  petitioners  into  consideration,  and  to  make  a direct,  full,  and 
solemn  report,  both  upon  its  principles  and  its  practicability.  It  is  in 
compliance  with  a desire  thus  entertained  in  many  respectable  quarters, 
that  they  have  the  honor  of  submitting  to  the  House  the  following 
reflections : 

The  Committee  need  scarcely  say  that  they  fully  appreciate  and 
sympathize  with  the  philanthropic  feelings  and  purposes  expressed  in 
the  memorial.  They  agree  that  the  union  of  all  nations,  in  a state  of 
peace,  under  the  restraints  and  the  protection  of  law,  is  the  ideal  per- 
fection of  civil  society.  Not,  however,  that  they  would  be  understood 
as  affirming  that  war  has  always,  in  the  history  of  mankind,  been  an 
unmixed  or  uncompensated  evil.  They  do  not  think  so.  To  say 
nothing  of  the  heroic  virtues  which  are  formed  under  its  stern  discipline, 
and  exercised  by  its  trials  and  perils,  war  has,  in  fact,  been  often,  both 
in  ancient  and  in  modern  times,  a mighty  and  even  a necessary  instru- 
ment of  civilization.  It  is  sufficient,  in  this  connection,  barely  to 
mention  the  names  of  Alexander  and  Charlemagne.  But  the  Coimnit- 
tee  also  think  that  those  times  are  gone  by.  Far  other  agents  of 
amelioration  and  progress  are  at  work  now  — agents  infinitely  more 
powerful  in  their  quiet  and  silent,  hut  incessant  operation,  and  whose 
efficacy  would  be  greatly  impaired  by  war,  did  they  not  tend,  more 
than  any  thing  else,  to  supersede  and  put  an  end  to  it.  The  age  is 
reproached  with  being  a mechanical  and  ignoble  one  — with  its  sordid 
love  of  gain,  its  plodding  devotion  to  business,  and  its  preference  of 
physical  comforts  and  personal  accommodation,  to  objects  that  elevate 
the  imagination  and  refine  the  taste  in  art  and  literature.  This  reproach 
is,  no  doubt,  to  a certain  degree,  well  founded ; but  we  must  not  forget 
that  we  do  not  forego  (as  far  as  we  do)  the  advantages  refeiTed  to, 
without  a real,  and,  in  the  eye  of  sober  reason,  an  abundantly  adequate 
compensation.  It  is  true  that  the  most  peculiar  characteristic  of  the 
civilization  of  these  times  is  a demand,  becoming  universal  among  all 
classes  of  society,  for  the  various  physical  comforts,  of  which  commerce 
is  the  inexhaustible  source.  But  it  is  this  very  peculiarity  that  opens 
an  entirely  new  prospect  to  the  human  race,  and  makes  the  present 
moment  an  epoch  in  its  history.  This  commercial  or  economical 
civilization,  if  we  may  call  it  so,  is  reconstructing  society  on  the 
broadest  and  most  solid  basis.  It  is  essentially  democratic  in  its 
character  and  tendencies.  It  pursues  steadily,  and  achieves,  with 
more  and  more  success  every  day,  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest 


668 


APPENDIX. 


160 


number.  It  is  every  where  increasing  population,  and  adding  im- 
mensely to  the  fund  that  employs  and  rewards  labor.  In  spite  of  many 
disturbing  causes,  which  will  disappear  in  the  progress  of  things,  it  is 
elevating  the  poor  in  the  social  scale,  providing  for  them  better  food, 
raiment  and  lodging,  as  well  as  means  of  a suitable  moral  and  intellec- 
tual education.  It  is  bringing  the  most  distant  families  of  manliind, 
as  it  were,  into  contact  with  one  anotlier,  and  effacing  all  the  sharp  and 
salient  peculiarities  of  national  character  that  now  estrange  them  from 
each  otlier.  It  is  revealing  the  great  cardinal  truth  of  free  trade  — so 
pregnant  with  moral  as  well  as  political  results  — that  “self-love  and 
social  are  the  same  ; ” tliat  every  country  is  interested  in  the  prosperity 
of  every  other ; that  production  can  never  be  excessive,  because,  where 
exchanges  are  untrammeled,  it  produces  its  own  consumption;  that 
nothing,  in  short,  can  be  more  shallow  in  science,  as  well  as  sordid 
and  naiTow  in  spirit,  than  a restrictive  policy  founded  upon  the  idea 
that  a nation  can  only  emdch  itself  at  the  expense  of  its  neighbors,  or 
has  any  thing  to  gain,  in  tlie  long  run,  from  their  losses.  When  we 
reflect  that,  during  the  whole  of  the  last  century,  and  for  a considerable 
period  before,  tlie  far  greater  part  of  the  blood  and  treasure  so  prodi- 
gally lavished  in  almost  incessant  war,  was  a sacrifice,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  fallacious  views  of  commercial  monopoly  and  colonial 
dominion  considered  as  instrumental  to  tliat  monopoly,  we  sliall  fully 
appreciate  the  importance  of  this  simple  truth,  once  become,  as  it  will 
infallibly  become,  a settled  maxim  of  national  policy.  With  notions  of 
economy  and  personal  comfort,  such  as  are  made  the  reproach  of  tlie 
times,  mankind  are  not  likely  much  longer  to  acquiesce  in  the  wanton 
and  protligato  waste  of  their  resources,  of  the  means  of  so  much 
private  and  public  prosperity,  in  contests  which  — to  say  nothing  of  the 
unspeakable  evils  that  accompany  them  — cannot  possibly  result  in  any 
adequate  advantage  to  either  party.  Their  reluctance  to  take  up  arms 
will  be  increased  by  a regard  not  only  to  their  own  interest  directly, 
but  to  that  of  their  adversaries,  which  is  in  effect  the  same  thing ; to 
make  war  upon  their  customers  in  trade,  ivill  be  felt  to  be  a mischiev- 
ous and  .suicidal  insanity.  This  motive  is,  perhaps,  not  a romantic  one; 
but  it  is  not  the  less  powerful  for  addressing  itself  less  to  sentiment  and 
the  imagination  than  to  the  habitual  selfishness  of  human  nature.  It  is 
thus  that  physical  causes  are  producing  moral  effects  of  the  greatest 
importance,  and  that  political  economy  becomes  the  most  effective 
auxiliary  of  Cdiristianity.  We  already  see,  in  a manner  not  to  be 
mistaken,  the  influence  of  such  ideas  in  the  contemporary  history  of 
Europe,  although  tliey  are  just  beginning  to  take  hold  of  the  public 
mind,  and  there  are  so  many  obstacles  to  their  progress  in  the  actual 


161 


APPENDIX. 


669 


state  of  tilings  there.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  imagine  a greater 
revolution  of  opinion,  in  the  same  time,  than  has  occurred  since  the 
peace  of  1815.  A single  generation  is  not  yet  passed  away  since  the 
downfall  of  Napoleon,  and  his  military  despotism  begins  already  to 
strike  tlie  minds  of  men  as  a barbarous  anomaly  in  such  an  age.  Since 
the  last  French  revolution,  causes  of  controversy,  witliout  number, 
sufficient  to  have  produced  desolating  wars  at  any  previous  epoch, 
have  arisen  and  passed  away  without  occasioning  one,  except  the 
disputed  succession  in  Spain  — an  exception  that  proves  the  rule. 
Much  is  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  personal  character  and  enlightened  views 
of  those  whose  position  enabled  them  to  control  that  great  event ; but, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  that  character  and  those  views  were  tliem- 
selves  the  work  of  the  age  which  tliey  reflect  so  faithfully. 

The  Committee  will  add,  that  there  is  another  point  in  which  every 
thing  that  tends  to  preserve  the  peace  of  nations  will,  ere-long,  come 
to  be  universally  regarded  as  peculiarly  interesting  to  mankind : tliey 
allude  to  its  effect  in  promoting  the  great  cause  of  limited  or  constitu- 
tional government.  War  has  ever  been  the  most  fruitful  source  of 
arbitrary  power.  They  are,  indeed,  to  a certain  extent,  inseparable.  A 
military  is,  necessarily,  in  spirit  and  effect,  a despotic,  and  must  gener- 
ally be  a monarchical  organization.  Not  only  so,  but  the  evil  tends  to 
propagate  and  to  perpetuate  itself.  One  great  power  arming  for  con- 
quest compels  all  neighboring  powers  to  arm  for  defence ; and  it  is  not 
a vain  or  fanciful  saying,  that  laws  are  silent  amidst  the  dim  of  anns. 
The  instinct  of  self-preservation  is  at  least  as  strong  in  nations  as  in 
individuals.  They  ever  have  been,  and  ever  will  be,  ready  to  sacrifice, 
without  scruple,  their  dearest  rights  and  liberties  in  order  to  maintain 
their  national  independence.  The  yoke  of  the  foreigner  is  so  galling 
and  degrading,  that  there  is  no  other  which  mankind  are  not  willing  to 
bear  in  order  to  avoid  it  “ The  salvation  of  the  people,” — sains  populi, 
— at  whatever  cost  or  risk,  must  and  will  be  the  supreme  law,  under 
every  form  of  government  The  dictators  of  republican  Rome,  the 
terrible  despotism  of  the  executive  committees  of  the  French  Conven- 
tion, are  only  instances  of  a universal  law  of  society  and  of  human 
nature  under  such  circumstances.  Hence  the  impossibility,  for  the 
present  at  least,  of  maintaining  such  institutions  as  ours  on  the  conti- 
nent of  Europe. 

Mirabeau  embodied  the  whole  philosophy  of  the  subject  in  his  well- 
known  apothegm,  that  France  was  “geographically  monarchical.” 
The  federal  relations  of  Europe  (for  Europe  is,  in  fact,  a confederacy) 
admit,  in  strict  theory,  of  no  arbiter  but  the  sword  ; and  tlie  independence 
of  most  of  the  powers  has  been  preseiwed  — as  far  as  it  has  been  pre- 


670 


APPENDIX. 


162 


served  at  all  — at  the  cost  of  popular  liberty.  That  happy  compromise 
by  which  the  wisdom  of  our  fathers  — availing  itself,  it  is  true,  of  such 
circumstances  as  have  never  occuiTed  elsewhere  — has  reconciled,  on 
this  continent,  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  with  the  rights  of  individ- 
uals, under  a peaceful,  judicial  administration  of  the  law,  is  still,  and 
is  likely  long  to  continue,  a desideratum  there.  But  the  spirit  of  the 
age  is  gradually  becoming  more  favorable  to  such  institutions,  just  in 
proportion  as  it  is  becoming  less  disposed  to  war.  Peace  is  the  hope 
of  liberty  — peace,  consecrated  as  the  standing,  fundamental  policy  of 
the  world.  Such  a state  of  opinion,  or  such  a condition  of  things  as 
will  dispense  with  large  armies  and  military  discipline,  with  a power, 
in  effect  dictatorial,  in  the  executive  department  of  governments,  and 
with  the  ambition,  the  glory,  and  the  fatal  popularity  and  influence  of 
successful  generals ; such  a perpetual  and  perfect  intercourse,  com- 
mercial and  otherwise,  among  men  as  will  mitigate  extremely,  if  not 
extinguish,  all  mutual  jealousy  and  hostility  between  nations  destined, 
under  the  blessed  influences  of  Christian  civilization,  to  form  but  one 
great  family,  and  will  thus  deprive  politicians  of  the  occasion  of  turning 
the  wildest  frenzy  and  worst  calamities  of  mankind  into  a means  of 
sanctifying  the  abuses  of  government  — will  inevitably  lead,  in  this 
age,  to  the  general  establishment  of  representative  institutions.  All 
the  tendencies  of  commerce  and  industry  are  to  social  equality ; peace 
will  add  to  that  equality  rational  liberty  under  a government  of  laws ; 
and  both  will  tend  to  perpetuate,  by  a natural  reaction,  the  causes  that 
produced  them. 

Concurring  thus  fully  in  the  benevolent  objects  of  the  memorialists, 
and  believing  that  there  is  a visible  tendency  in  the  spirit  and  institu- 
tions of  the  age  towards  the  practical  accomplishment  of  it  at  some 
future  period,  the  Committee  regret  to  have  to  say  that  they  have  not 
the  same  confidence  in  the  vieans  recommended  in  the  petition.  They 
are  of  opinion  that  reforms  so  fundamental,  can  only  be  brought  about 
by  the  gradual  progress  of  civilization,  and  in  consequence  of  a real 
change  in  the  condition  of  society.  They  must  follow  events,  and 
conform  to  them ; they  cannot,  by  any  contrivance  of  man,  be  made  to 
precede  and  control  them.  All  attempts,  in  such  matters,  except  by 
bloody  revolutions  or  conquests,  to  anticipate  the  natural  course  of 
things,  are  entirely  unavailing. 

The  scheme  of  the  memorialists  is,  as  we  have  seen,  to  refer  all 
international  disputes  to  a Congress  of  deputies,  and  to  authorize  that 
Congress  to  digest  a code  of  public  law  that  shall  be  binding  only  on 
such  powers  as  should  voluntarily  adopt  it. 

The  first  objection  to  this  plan  lies  upon  the  surface,  and  is  entirely 


163 


APPENDIX. 


671 


fatal.  The  unanimous  consent  of  nations,  in  the  actual  state  of  the 
world,  to  such  a proposal,  is  — as  any  one  will  be  convinced  who 
reflects  a moment  upon  their  political  relations,  or  will  but  cast  his  eye 
over  a map  of  Europe  — entirely  out  of  the  question ; and  tlie  refusal  of 
a single  great  power  to  acquiesce  in  it,  would  alone  render  it  abortive. 
This  is  not  matter  of  speculation ; it  is  what  has  actually  occurred  in 
one  of  the  most  important  departments  of  international  law.  The 
House  is  aware  that  Great  Britain  maintains  doctrines  in  reference  to 
the  maritime  rights  of  belligerents,  which  were  formally  disavowed 
and  denounced,  during  tlie  war  of  our  Revolution,  by  almost  all  the 
leading  powers  of  Europe,  banded  together  to  resist  the  enforcement  of 
them  in  practice.  On  some  of  the  points  involved  in  the  declarations 
of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  our  own  prize  courts  have  followed,  perhaps 
too  implicitly,  tliose  of  England ; but  on  otliers  — for  example,  the  rule, 
as  it  is  called,  of ’56  — tliey  have  adhered  to  the  law,  as  explained  by 
that  famous  league.  And  yet,  against  the  concurring  opinions  of  all 
the  rest  of  the  civilized  world,  and  in  spite  of  the  bloody  wars  to  which 
the  exercise  of  her  pretended  rights  has  led,  and  may  yet  lead.  Great 
Britain  maintains  her  principles,  iiTeconcilable  as  they  are  with  the 
practice  of  nations  in  analogous  cases  on  land,  and  indeed  with  all 
modern  ideas  of  civilized  warfare ; and  even  interposes  her  overruling 
influence  to  prevent  any  of  the  minor  states  of  Europe  from  adopting, 
for  their  own  convenience,  provisions  inconsistent  with  those  principles, 
in  treaties  professedly  confined  to  tlie  parties  making  them.  What 
declaration  of  a Congress,  constituted  as  the  one  in  question  would  be, 
can  be  expected  to  have,  by  the  mere  weight  of  its  authority,  more 
effect  on  the  opinions  and  the  conduct  of  mankind,  tlian  that  of  such  a 
formidable  coalition  as  the  Armed  Neutrality  ? 

Had  England  not  engrossed  the  empire  of  the  seas  for  about  a cen- 
tury past,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  doubt  but  that  the  law  of  maritime 
captures  would  have  been  made  to  correspond  more  strictly  with  the 
analogies  of  war  on  land,  and  private  property  been  held  as  sacred  in 
the  one  case  as  in  tlie  other.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  at  the  Con- 
gress of  Utrecht,  before  her  ascendant  was  established,  that  power  was 
an  advocate  of  the  rights  of  neutrals.  She  is  now  their  worst  enemy ; 
and  her  resistance  presents  an  obstacle,  for  the  present  at  least,  quite 
insuperable  to  any  reform  in  this  particular ; just  as  the  refusal  of 
either  France,  or  Austria,  or  Russia,  &c.,  would  be  fatal  to  the  project 
of  the  memorialists.  Such  is  the  preponderance  of  these  powers  in  tlie 
balance  of  Europe,  so  peculiar  and  so  various  their  interests,  so  many 
changes  will  be  necessary  in  most  of  them  to  bring  their  institutions 
into  harmony  with  the  leveling  spirit  of  the  age,  and  so  to  make  it  all 


672 


APPENDIX. 


164 


safe  for  them  to  submit  to  any  arbiter  but  force,  that  it  were  chimerical 
to  expect  their  cooperation  in  any  plan  to  dispense  with  it  altogether. 
When  Henry  IV  conceived  Ms  project  of  perpetual  peace,  he  did  not 
look  for  the  countenance  or  consent  of  the  then  predominant  house 
of  Austria.  On  tlie  contrary,  his  first  object  was  to  overcome  the 
resistance  which  he  expected  from  that  quarter.  His  grand  scheme  of 
pacification  was  founded  on  as  vast  a one  of  preparatory  war  and  rev- 
olution. That  house  was  to  be  reduced  ; its  power  broken ; its  terri- 
tories partitioned.  This  was  evidently  an  indispensable  prerequisite, 
and  his  was  too  practical  a mind  not  to  perceive  it.  The  Committee 
will  add  here,  what  will  be  found  to  illustrate  another  proposition 
advanced  in  tlris  report,  that  his  project  assumed  a still  more  important 
alteration  in  the  interests  and  relations  of  mankind.  It  constituted 
Europe  on  an  entirely  new  basis.  He  would  have  built  up  a balance 
of  power  on  something  like  an  equality  of  territory.  He  would  have 
dealt  with  that  continent  as  an  ancient  lawgiver  — a Moses  or  Lycur- 
gus  — would  have  dealt  with  the  soil  of  a particular  country,  distribu- 
ting it  on  agrarian  principles,  in  order  that  his  new  constitution  of 
society  should  have  something  solid  to  rest  upon  in  the  nature  of 
tilings.  In  this  respect,  too,  as  the  Committee  will  presently  endeavor 
to  show,  he  evinced  a practical  wisdom  far  above  such  a dream  as  that 
of  a revolution  in  the  whole  conduct  of  nations,  to  be  effected  by  a 
mere  declaration  of  abstract  principles  on  paper  or  parchment. 

And  this  leads  to  the  second  objection,  which  is,  tliat  even  if  the 
consent  of  all  the  great  powers — ^supposing  their  present  relations 
toward  one  another  to  remain  precisely  as  they  are  — could  be  obtained 
to  such  an  experiment,  there  seems  to  your  Committee  to  be  no  reason 
for  anticipating  any  good  result  from  either  of  tlie  expedients  recom- 
mended by  tlie  memorialists. 

First:  with  regard  to  a code  of  international  law.  Nothing,  in  the 
opinion  of  your  Committee,  is  more  fallacious  than  the  idea  that  mere 
positive  legislation,  wlien  not  preceded  or  accompanied  by  conquest  or 
revolution,  has  ever  had  a very  important  agency  in  human  affairs. 
Tliis  proposition,  they  are  aware,  may  seem  paradoxical  at  a period 
when  so  much  is  said  about  written  codes  and  constitutions  ; but  it  is 
fully  established  by  experience,  even  were  it  not,  as  it  is,  sufficiently 
clear  (I  pnon.  The  most  renowned  systems  of  legislation  have  been 
tlie  slow  work  of  time,  modified  in  some  degree,  and  improved  by  an 
enlightened,  experimental  wisdom,  taking  advantage  of  circumstances, 
rather  than  aspiring  to  control  them.  Even  when  reduced  to  the  form 
of  codes,  they  have  done  little  more,  when  they  have  done  any  good  at 
all,  tlian  record  witli  precision,  and  clothe  in  solemn  form,  the  opinions. 


165 


APPENDIX. 


673 


usages  and  manners  of  a people,  with  such  limited  modifications  of 
them  as  have  been  just  alluded  to.  The  Committee  will  not  trouble 
the  House  with  the  elaborate  development  to  which  the  importance  of 
this  great  and  fundamental  truth  would,  on  a proper  occasion,  so 
fully  entitle  it ; nor  by  citing  examples  which  it  would  be  easy  to 
multiply,  to  confirm  and  illustrate  it.  But  there  is  one  of  these,  too 
often  mentioned  to  be  overlooked,  too  striking  to  be  slighted,  and  yet 
in  general  so  little  understood  as  to  require  a statement  of  the  precise 
truth  in  regard  to  it:  they  mean  the  Justinian  collection,  which  is 
habitually  cited  as  an  instance  of  written  law,  properly  so  called,  that 
is,  of  law  arbitrarily  prescribed  by  the  supreme  power  in  the  state;  yet 
every  civilian  knows  that  the  great  bulk  and  body  of  the  corpus  juris 
civilis  is  strictly  common  law,  the  law,  namely,  of  opinion,  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  of  practice.  The  Pandects  are,  from  beginning  to  end, 
nothing  but  a repository  of  the  wisdom  of  the  great  jurisconsults  of  a 
better  age,  delivered  to  the  public  in  the  shape  of  treatises,  institutes 
and  maxims,  or  in  that  of  consultations  or  opinions  solving  questions  of 
practical  jurisprudence. 

But  if  this  be  true  even  of  the  law  of  property  and  contract  {meum 
and  tuum),  it  is  obviously  still  more  applicable  to  public  law  in  both  its 
great  branches,  the  constitutional  and  the  international,  but  especially 
the  latter.  As  to  constitutions,  the  experience  of  the  last  half  century 
supersedes  the  necessity  of  saying  a word  about  their  total  inefficacy 
where  a people  is  not  ripe  for  them ; or,  in  other  words,  where  they 
are  arbitrarily  made  for  a people.  Such  an  instrument  is  a mere  de- 
ception, not  worth  the  parchment  on  which  it  is  engrossed.  None  but 
the  most  visionary  minds  can  now  have  any  faith  in  the  mysteries,  once 
held  in  such  reverence,  of  written  forms.  Our  own  government  has 
been  absurdly  cited  as  an  example  of  the  kind.  It  is,  as  the  House  is 
aware,  a remarkable  instance  of  the  very  reverse.  Its  two  prominent 
characteristics,  its  two  vital  principles  as  a federal  republic — the  pop- 
ular representation  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature,  the  equality  of 
voices  in  the  other — are  founded  on  facts,  of  which  the  existence  is 
quite  independent  of  all  constitutions,  and  which  may  be  considered  as 
primordial  in  this  country.  The  States  were  as  free,  even  as  republi- 
can before  the  Revolution,  as  they  are  now ; they  were  at  the  same 
time,  independent  communities,  connected,  indeed,  by  many  ties,  but 
especially  by  geographical  position  and  by  their  common  relation  to 
the  mother  country,  but  still  distinct  and  independent  of  each  other.  It 
might  have  been  predicted  with  confidence,  that  no  government  could 
be  formed  which  should  not  reconcile,  as  far  as  possible,  both  these 
85 


674 


APPENDIX. 


166 


facts.  Washington,  for  example,  as  is  very  apparent  from  his  corre- 
spondence, as  well  as  from  his  conduct,  had,  with  that  sound  good  sense 
and  large,  comprehensive  and  practical  wisdom  so  characteristic  of 
him,  a clear  perception  of  this  truth.  The  form  of  the  Legislative 
Assembly,  composed  of  two  Houses,  was  the  established  one  of  the 
country — a part  of  its  common  law  and  liereditary  liberties,  and  those 
of  the  wlrole  English  race : but  how  were  those  Houses  to  be  constitu- 
ted ? Here  was  a new  question,  and  the  only  new  question ; and  yet 
the  solution  of  it,  in  the  very  manner  in  which  it  \vas  solved,  was  inev- 
itable. No  one  can  imagine,  that  on  any  merely  theoretical  principles 
the  State  of  Virginia  could  have  been  brought  then,  or  the  State  of 
New  York  could  be  brought  now,  for  the  first  time,  to  consent  that  her 
immense  numerical  superiority  sliould  be  neutralized  in  the  equal  vote 
of  the  Senate.  So  far,  however,  from  being  the  strange  anomaly  which 
a foreigner  might  imagine  it,  it  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world ; 
so  far  from  being  an  arbitrary  institution  it  is,  so  to  express  it,  a corol- 
lary flowing  out  of  our  whole  history ; instead  of  being  the  creature  of 
the  constitution,  it  was  its  necessary,  indispensable  condition.  Nor  is 
it  merely  because  it  is  recognized  in  that  constitution,  and  clothed  by 
it  with  a peculiar  sanctity,  that  it  maintains  its  place  there  ; it  rests  on 
more  solid  ground — on  public  opinion.  The  spirit  which  produced  it 
is  still  in  all  its  pristine  vigor ; the  fact,  of  which  it  was  the  expression, 
.still  exists ; the  States,  one  and  all  of  them,  have  a deep  interest  in 
maintaining  their  independence  as  States,  and  would  unite  in  resisting 
a change  which  would  arm  the  strong  against  the  weak,  to  the  common 
ruin.  Tlie  Senate  is  thus  fully  a counterpoise  to  the  other  House  j 
because,  like  that  House,  it  is  the  sign  of  a living  power— the  repre- 
sentative of  an  actual  interest ; because,  like  it,  it  is  founded  upon  a 
state  of  opinion,  and  of  things  which  cannot  be  clianged  without  war — 
to  maintain  which,  men  would  bo  willing  to  lay  down  their  lives,  and 
to  sacrifice  even  the  government  itself.  It  is  this  that  gives  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  more  weight  and  efficiency  than  belong  to 
any  similar  body,  any  House  of  Lords,  or  Chamber  of  Peers,  in  the 
world.  But  this  unquestionable  truth  at  the  same  time  sufficiently  evin- 
ces, that,  of  all  chimeras,  it  is  the  wildest  to  expect  to  see  smiilar  institu- 
tions established,  to  any  practical  good  purpose,  in  countries  wliere 
there  are  no  fads  that  answer  to  them. 

But  if  codes  of  municipal  and  constitutional  law,  to  be  effective  must 
mainly  form  themselves  in  the  silent  progress  of  events,  we  find  in  in- 
ternational law  a body  of  jurisprudence  which  is,  and  of  necessity  must 
be,  exclusively  the  growth  of  opinion.  There  is  liere  no  legislative 
power,  no  common  arbiter,  nothing  but  an  occasional  convention  or  es- 


167 


APPENDIX. 


675 


tablished  usage,  to  give  sanction  to  its  precepts.  And  yet  wlioever, 
fresh  from  the  history  of  mankind  in  more  remote  ages,  shall  open  the 
great  work  of  Grotius,  will  be  struck  with  the  immense  progress  of 
society,  revealed  in  every  page  of  it.  This  justly  celebrated,  and  still, 
in  its  kind,  unrivaled  collection  of  the  maxims  of  international  justice, 
standing  on  the  very  threshold  of  what  is  properly  called  modern  history, 
ought  to  be  considered,  perhaps,  as  the  grandest  monument  which 
human  hands  have  yet  erected  to  the  influence  of  Christianity.  Be- 
fore the  16th  century,  the  conventional  law  of  nations  hardly  deserves 
notice ; treaties  are  but  few  and  meagre : but  Europe  was  a family  of 
nations  bound  together  in  the  unity  of  a common  faith,  and  the  law  of 
enlightened  reason  and  of  good-will  among  men,  proclaimed  from  the 
pulpit  and  at  the  altar,  established  itself,  gradually  and  by  tacit  consent, 
in  the  practice  of  mankind.  It  is  thus  that  most  of  the  usages  which 
give  such  a hideous  and  barbarous  aspect  to  war,  even  in  the  most 
civilized  periods  of  antiquity,  have  been  effaced.  Certainly,  some 
additional  reforms  might  be  made  in  international  law,  as,  for  example,  in 
the  matter  of  maritime  captures,  to  which  allusion  has  already  been 
had.  These  reforms,  to  the  honor  of  our  country  be  it  said,  have  been 
incessantly  aimed  at  and  perseveringly  pursued,  in  her  negotiations, 
from  the  very  first  into  which  she  entered  as  an  independent  nation, 
down  to  the  present  time.  Your  Committee  trust  that  no  administration 
will  ever  lose  sight  of  them ; they  are  confident  of  ultimate  success ; 
they  have  unlimited  faith  in  the  truth,  justice,  and  wisdom  of  the  max- 
ims involved  in  those  reforms ; but  it  is  only  from  the  gradual  progress 
of  social  improvement  that  such  a consummation  is  to  be  hoped  for. 
It  is  not  a code  or  collection  of  these  maxims  that  is  wanted ; it  is  the 
power  to  enforce  or  the  spirit  to  practise  them  which  no  code  can  give. 

With  regard  to  the  proposed  international  board  of  arbitration,  the 
objections  of  the  Committee  are  still  stronger.  A code  digested  and 
promulged  as  the  memorialists  desire,  would  do  no  good,  but  it  could 
scarcely  do  any  harm.  Not  so  with  a tribunal  of  any  sort.  The  prob- 
ability, to  be  sure,  is,  that  the  decrees  of  such  a one  as  is  here  contem- 
plated would  be  merely  nugatory;  but,  if  it  had  any  influence  at  all,  it 
might,  in  the  actual  relations  of  the  great  powers,  easily  be  perverted 
to  the  worst  ends.  It  might  be  made  especially  to  impede  the  progress 
of  the  very  improvements  it  would  have  been  instituted  to  promote,  and, 
instead  of  disarming  the  mighty,  become  in  their  hands  an  engine  of 
usurpation  and  tyranny.  He  is  but  superficially  versed  in  the  history 
of  nations  who  does  not  know  that  some  of  the  greatest  revolutions  in 
society  have  been  brought  about  through  the  instrumentality  of  judicial 
tribunals.  The  Committee  will  cite  but  one  example : they  refer  to 


676 


APPENDIX. 


168 


the  gradual  subversion  of  the  feudal  confederacy  of  France,  by  the 
crown  exercising,  as  it  did,  a paramount  influence  over  a nominal 
court  of  peers.  The  authority  of  law,  once  established  and  acknowl- 
edged among  men,  is  second  only  to  that  of  religion.  Judges  do  much 
more  than  pronounce  and  enforce  judgment  in  particular  cases ; they 
shape  tiie  opinions  of  mankind  in  analogous  ones  ; and  those  opinions, 
as  we  liave  seen,  are  the  basis  of  all  government  and  legislation. 

It  will  immediately  occur  to  the  House,  that  the  only  republic  in  the 
world  should  be  very  careful  not  to  commit  its  destinies,  in  any  serious 
degree,  to  institutions  which  might  and  would  be  controlled  by  influ- 
ences hostile  to  its  principles ; and,  the  more  especially,  as  the  natural 
tendency  of  things  is  more  favorable  to  those  principles  than  any  policy 
shaped  or  controlled  by  tlie  existing  governments  of  Europe  can 
possibly  be  expected  to  prove.  In  the  nature  of  things,  every  organ, 
however  constituted,  of  such  governments,  must  speak  the  language  of 
what  is  called  “ resistance  ” to  the  spirit  of  the  age  ; and  if  any  tiling 
could  enable  them  to  resist  that  spirit,  it  would  be  a permanent  Con- 
gress of  Laybach  or  Verona,  laying  down  tlie  law  of  war  and  peace  for 
all  nations.  This  was,  indeed,  the  very  scheme  of  the  Holy  Alliance, 
to  which  this  country  was  formally  invited  to  accede. 

The  example  of  the  Amphictyonic  Council  of  Greece,  which  has 
been  cited  with  confidence  by  the  petitioners,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Committee,  as  unfavorable  to  tlieir  purpose  as  any  that  could  be  select- 
ed from  the  records  of  the  past.  Without  going  into  a critical  exam- 
ination of  its  history,  for  which  this  is  not  a suitable  occasion,  it  is 
sufficient  to  refer  to  indisputable  general  results,  to  what  every  one 
who  will  cast  his  eye,  however  carelessly,  over  the  annals  of  those 
commonwealths,  will  at  once  perceive — that  it  had  no  effect  whatever  in 
healing  their  fatal  dissensions ; that  so  long  as  tliere  was  any  thing 
like  a balance  of  power  among  the  principal  states,  they  continued  to 
make  war  upon  each  otlier,  without  tlie  least  regard  to  the  imaginary 
jurisdiction  of  that  assembly ; that,  although  by  its  constitution  the 
twelve  peoples  composing  it  had  each  an  equal  voice  in  it,  whatever 
might  be  their  inequality  of  weight  and  importance,  yet  its  decisions 
were  continually  and  openly  swayed  by  the  influence  of  the  power  or 
powers  in  tlie  ascendant  for  the  time  being ; and  finally,  that  it  was  by 
availing  himself  of  his  absolute  control  over  it,  and  by  taking  advan- 
tage of  a favorable  juncture  in  affairs  brought  about  by  its  policy,  that 
Pliilip  of  Macedon  found  a plausible  pretext,  and  a show  of  legitimate 
authority,  to  sanctify  the  machinations  which  lie  had  been  long  con- 
triving, and  the  war  which  he  ultimately  waged  with  success  against 
the  liberties  of  Greece. 


169 


APPENDIX. 


677 


Every  other  mere  confederation,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times, 
except  under  circumstances  so  peculiar  as  to  make  them  unfit  to  be 
considered  as  precedents,  has  been  attended  with  the  same  results. 
Either  the  leading  members  of  them,  at  the  head  of  standing,  systematic 
parties,  have  been  at  perpetual  war  with  each  other,  or  the  overruling 
ascendant  of  some  one  of  them  has  enabled  it  to  invade  the  riglits  of 
all  the  rest,  in  every  form  of  violence  and  artifice.  The  late  German 
empire,  for  example,  affords  us  instances  of  botli  these  tendencies. 
Some  of  the  longest  and  most  desolating  wars  that  have  scourged 
Europe  have  grown  out  of  tire  conflicting  interests  of  the  members  of 
that  league  of  peace,  and  had  for  their  avowed  object  the  adjustment 
of  those  interests  according  to  the  true  theory  of  its  public  law.  This 
was  as  much  the  case  after  as  before  tlie  treaty  of  Westphalia,  although 
one  capital  object  of  that  memorable  negotiation  was  to  reform  the 
constitution  or  tlie  administration  of  the  Imperial  Chamber  and  the 
Aulic  Council  — in  which  jurisdiction  in  federal  and  feudal  causes  had 
been  vested,  without  any  effect,  however,  in  deciding  them  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  weaker  party.  Neither  ought  it  to  be  forgotten,  that 
by  that  treaty  a majority  of  suffrages  in  the  diet  was  no  longer  to  give 
the  law  in  any  matters  that  related  to  religion,  or  in  which  the  two 
great  parties,  as  such,  should  vote  differently,  or,  in  general,  in  any 
case  wherein  all  the  states  could  not  be  considered  as  forming  a single 
consolidated  nation.  In  all  such  cases,  the  questions  submitted  to 
them  were  to  be  treated  as  tlrose  arising  between  foreign  nations,  and 
to  be  arranged  by  compromise,  with  no  appeal  but  to  the  sword.  So 
difficult  is  it  to  accomplish  what  the  memorialists  propose,  — the 
peaceful  decision  of  controversies  between  states  whose  interests  are 
materially  different,  — that  even  where  tribunals  have  been  instituted 
for  that  purpose,  the  abuses  to  which  they  have  been  made  to  lend  their 
authority  have  seldom  failed,  in  the  end,  to  aggravate  and  multiply  the 
very  evils  they  were  intended  to  prevent.  Experience  shows,  that  of 
all  wars,  the  most  obstinate  and  terrible  are  those  which  grow  out  of 
such  abuses.  They  partake  of  the  nature  of  revolution  and  civil  war ; 
the  color  of  authority  on  the  one  side,  the  sense  of  injustice  on  the 
other,  inflame  the  usual  bitterness  of  hostility ; and  battles  are  more 
sanguinary,  and  victory  less  merciful,  where  the  contest  is  waged  by 
parties  standing  towards  each  other  in  the  supposed  relation  of  rebel 
and  tyrant.  Such  institutions,  therefore,  unless  where  the  circum- 
stances of  a country  are  very  peculiar,  have  inevitably  one  of  two 
effects : they  either  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  oppressor,  or  they  lead 
to  dreadful  and  desolating  wars  to  overthrow  him ; sometimes,  as  in 


678 


APPENDIX. 


170 


the  case  of  the  Germanic  empire,  and  the  house  of  Austria  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  to  both. 

Upon  the  wliole,  your  Committee  are  of  0])inion  tliat  time  is  the  best 
reformer  in  such  things,  and  that  any  attempt  to  anticipate  the  natural 
progress  of  events,  by  institutions  arbitrarily  adopted,  would  either  be 
vain,  or  something  worse  than  vain.  Tliey  have  endeavored  to  show 
that  the  cause  of  peace  is  visibly  gaining  ground ; that  mankind  are 
already  become,  and  will  daily  become  more  and  more  indisposed  to 
sacrifice  their  comforts  and  their  business  to  tlie  ambition  of  govern- 
ments ; nay,  that  governments  themselves,  partaking  of  the  spirit  of  the 
times,  or  dreading  its  eifects,  avoid,  as  much  as  possible,  those  ruinous 
contests  by  whicli  nations  are  rendered  discontented,  and  rulers  more 
dependent  on  them,  just  wlien  suffering  and  poverty  most  dispose  them 
to  revolt.  Instead  of  Congresses  to  put  an  end  to  war,  generally  on 
the  foot  of  the  statu  quo  ante  helium,  there  are  Congresses  to  prevent  a 
rupture,  and  piles  of  protocols  attest  that  power,  as  was  said  of  the 
Spartans  after  a memorable  defeat,  has  lost  much  of  its  insolent  and 
peremptory  brevity  of  speech.  The  truth  is,  that  every  war  hereafter 
will,  by  the  social  disorders  that  are  likely  to  accompany  or  to  follow 
such  an  event,  throw  additional  obstacles  in  the  way  of  future  ones. 
The  sword  will  thus  prove  the  surest  guaranty  of  peace. 

Your  Committee,  therefore,  do  not  think  the  establishment  of  a per- 
manent international  tribunal,  under  the  present  circumstances  of  the 
world,  at  all  desirable  ; but  they  heartily  concur  with  the  memorialists 
in  recommending  a reference  to  a third  power  of  all  such  controversies 
as  can  safely  be  confided  to  any  tribunal  unknown  to  the  constitution 
of  our  own  country.  Such  a practice  will  be  followed  by  other  powers, 
already  inclined,  as  we  have  seen,  to  avoid  war,  and  will  soon  grow  up 
into  the  customary  law  of  civilized  nations.  They  conclude,  therefore, 
by  recommending  to  the  memorialists  to  persevere  in  exerting  whatever 
influence  they  may  possess  over  public  opinion,  to  dispose  it  habitually 
to  the  accommodation  of  national  differences  without  bloodshed ; and 
to  the  House,  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Connnittec  be  discharged  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  referred  to  them. 


171 


APPENDIX. 


679 


No.  9. 


Second  Petition  of  the  American  Peace  Society  to  Congress. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 

States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled : 

The  undersigned,  President  and  Executive  Committee  of  the  Amer- 
ican Peace  Society,  by  the  authority  and  in  behalf  of  that  Society, 
present  the  following  memorial  and  petition : 

Believing  that  the  custom  of  war  between  Christian  nations  is  bar- 
barous and  unnecessary,  and,  to  quote  the  language  of  tlie  illustrious 
Jefferson,  “that  war  is  an  instrument  entirely  inefficient  toward  redress- 
ing wrong,  and  that  it  multiplies  instead  of  indemnifying  losses ; ” and 
being  fully  assured,  that  the  time  has  at  length  come,  when  a more 
cheap,  humane,  equitable  and  Christian  method  of  settling  international 
contests  may  be  obtained,  we  petition  your  honorable  bodies  to  take 
such  means  as  may  appear  to  your  wisdom  best  adapted  to  this  desir- 
able end. 

The  plan  which  your  petitioners  would  venture  to  suggest,  as  best 
adapted  to  bring  about  so  desirable  a consummation,  is  simple  and  easy 
to  be  accomplished.  It  consists  of  two  distinct  paids,  eitlier  of  which 
may  be  accomplished  without  the  other ; but  their  practicability  and 
utility  would  be  promoted  by  the  union  of  both. 

1.  A Congress  of  Ambassadors  representing  such  of  the  governments 
of  Christendom  as  shall  unite  in  the  measure,  for  the  purpose  of  digest- 
ing a code  of  international  law,  to  be  adopted  by  the  universal  consent 
of  the  Congress,  voting  by  nations,  and  binding  only  on  the  govern- 
ments that  shall  freely  adopt  it.  When  tliis  work  is  carried  as  far  as 
the  circumstances  of  the  times  will  permit,  the  Congress  may  be  dis- 
solved, or  adjourned  sine  die,  to  be  reassembled  when  circumstances 
favorable  to  a further  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  man  may  be  de- 
veloped. 

2.  An  international  tribunal,  consisting  of  eminent  civilians,  ap- 
pointed by  the  government  of  each  of  the  concurring  powers,  to  hold 
their  offices  during  good  behaviour,  who  shall  judge  all  cases  brought 
before  them  by  the  mutual  consent  of  any  two  or  more  nations,  to  hold 
tlieir  sessions  in  any  of  the  countries  of  the  high  contracting  parties, 
except  in  tlie  territory  of  either  of  the  parties  appealing  to  them  for 
judgment,  who  shall  base  their  decisions  on  the  abovementioned  code 
of  laws,  so  far  as  it  is  settled,  and  when  that  fails,  on  the  principles  of 


680 


APPENDIX. 


172 


equity;  such  judgments  to  be  enforced  only  by  the  power  of  public 
opinion,  and  such  other  peaceful  means  as  the  nations  shall  adopt  by 
their  ambassadors  in  Congress  assembled. 

Your  petitioners  are  aware,  that  the  progress  of  such  a Cong'ress 
would  be  slow,  but  the  results  would  be  the  more  permanent  and  val- 
uable. It  would  begin  by  adopting  those  principles  which  are  almost 
self-evident,  and  would  advance  to  those  which  are  more  doubtful  and 
complicated.  Experience  has  shown  on  moral  subjects,  no  less  than 
in  the  exact  sciences,  that  when  first  principles  have  been  firmly  estab- 
lished, the  most  complicated  propositions  may  be  demonstrated,  and 
also  when  people  once  heartily  begin  to  promote  a good  work,  that  a 
spirit  of  mutual  concession  is  generated,  which  will  make  crooked 
things  straight,  remove  mountains  of  difficulty,  and  fill  up  intervening 
valleys  ; — which  trutli  our  own  country,  both  under  the  old  confedera- 
tion and  the  new  constitution,  has  abundantly  exemplified. 

It  is  not  long  since  the  world  was  ruled  altogether  by  the  sword,  but 
now,  “ opinion  is  the  queen  of  the  world,”*  and  begins  to  extend  her 
legitimate  sway  over  the  nations  of  the  earth.  Her  power  will  increase 
as  civilization  extends,  and  the  march  of  civilization  is  commensurate 
with  the  duration  of  peace  and  the  extent  of  peace  principles.  It  is 
the  gospel  of  peace  which  will  “rebuke  strong  nations  afar  offj”  and 
compel  them  by  the  power  of  public  opinion  to  “ beat  their  swords  into 
ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks.”f 

We  live  in  an  age  when  the  bare  attempt  to  do  that  which  ought  to 
be  done,  insures  success.  The  speed,  with  which  great  enterprises  are 
carried  to  their  successful  consummation,  is  no  more  to  be  measured  by 
the  creeping  pace  of  public  opinion  in  by-gone  ages,  than  the  velocity 
of  a railroad  car  is  to  be  judged  by  the  slow  movements  of  the  cum- 
bersome wains  of  antiquity. 

If  ancient  attempts  to  preserve  peace  by  an  international  tribunal, 
were  only  partially  successful,  that  ought  not  to  discourage  us  from 
making  similar  attempts  on  a larger  scale,  and  in  a more  mature  state 
of  society,  any  more  than  the  entire  failure,  or  only  partial  success,  of 
former  attempts  at  a steam-boat,  ought  to  have  discouraged  Fulton. 
The  partial  success  of  the  Old  Confederation,  formed  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Union  in  1775,  in  a time  of  war,  excitement,  and  inexperi- 
ence in  the  art  of  self-govermnent,  did  not  discourage  the  framers  of 
the  New  Constitution  in  1787 ; but  it  must  be  confessed,  that  the  Old 
Confederation  was  the  parent  of  the  New  Constitution,  and  had  not 


* John  (i.  Adams’s  Plii  Beta  Kappa  Address. 


t Mi  call  4:  3. 


173 


APPENDIX. 


681 


that  existed,  this  could  never  have  been  born.  The  framers  of  the  New 
Constitution  profited  by  the  errors  of  their  predecessors,  and  produced 
an  institution  which  has  astonished  and  delighted  the  world.  All 
improvement  is,  in  its  very  nature,  progressive.  Let  the  present  gene- 
ration form  a confederation  of  Christian  nations  for  desirable  purposes, 
— the  next  generation  will  produce  a constitution  which,  while  it  will 
leave  every  nation  perfectly  independent  as  to  all  internal  affairs  and 
forms  of  government,  will  bind  all  civilized  nations  in  one  bond  of 
peace  and  good-will. 

It  is  no  good  reason  why  there  should  be  no  Congress  of  Nations, 
because  it  cannot  do  every  thing.  Nor  will  the  refusal  of  one  or  even 
many  nations  to  concur,  entirely  defeat  our  enterprise.  If  no  other 
than  Great  Britain,  France  and  the  United  States  should  agree  on  any 
article  of  international  law,  the  principle,  thus  settled  by  the  three 
chief  commercial  powers  in  the  world,  would  soon  become  the  law  of 
nations,  by  the  bare  power  and  impulse  of  moral  truth.  For  instance, 
should  these  three  powers  repudiate  the  practice  of  privateering,  the 
relinquishment  of  that  practice  would  forthwith  be  a blessing  to  the 
high  contracting  parties,  and  this  relic  of  barbarism  would  soon  be 
relinquished  by  every  Christian  nation. 

As  the  contemplated  Congress  would  have  nothing  to  do,  and  could 
have  nothing  to  do,  with  the  internal  affairs  of  nations,  it  could  be  no 
more  dangerous  to  our  free  institutions  than  a treaty  of  peace  and  com- 
merce, entered  into  by  us  with  the  ambassador  of  a monarchical  gov- 
ernment. Even  a general  treaty  of  peace,  entered  into  by  all  the 
powers  of  Christendom,  especially  if  we  should  not  be  bound  by  any 
article  of  such  a treaty,  unless  we  should  voluntarily  and  formally 
assent  to  it,  could  not  endanger  our  free  institutions.  Despotic  institu- 
tions would  be  more  endangered  by  a Congress  of  nations,  than  our 
republican  principles.  It  was  well  observed  in  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  on  this  subject,  presented  to  Congress 
at  its  last  session,  “War  has  ever  been  the  fruitful  source  of  arbitrary 
power.  They  are,  to  a certain  degree,  inseparable.”  By  preventing 
war,  then,  we  promote  free  institutions  in  other  countries,  and  secure 
them  in  our  own. 

If  a good  thing  be  liable  to  abuse,  we  should  not  deem  that  a suffi- 
cient argument  against  its  adoption ; otherwise  we  must  throw  away  all 
the  improvements  of  society,  both  physical  and  moral.  The  constantly 
advancing  improvements  in  the  world  are  a sure  guaranty,  that  when  a 
thing  is  good  in  itself,  the  good  will  gain  an  increasing  preponderance, 
which  will  finally  reduce  the  evil  to  the  “ small  dust  of  the  balance.” 
If  bodies  armed  with  physical  force  are  dangerous,  it  does  not  follow 
86 


682 


APPENDIX. 


174 


tliat  similar  bodies,  armed  only  with  moral  power,  will  be  dangerous 
also.  Bodies  so  constituted  tliat  there  is  “ no  appeal  from  them  but  to 
the  sword,”*  may  be  dangerous,  while  those  that  have  no  appeal  but  to 
public  opinion  may  be,  at  least,  harmless.  If  the  fact,  that  civil  war  is 
more  bitter  than  foreign,  and  that  the  “ battles  are  more  sanguinary,  and 
victory  less  merciful,”*  which  gi-ow  out  of  the  organization  of  society, 
be  of  sufficient  weight  to  discourage  such  organizations,  then  society 
must  revert  to  its  first  elements,  and  all  government  but  that  of  brute 
force  be  superseded.  Mankind  have  so  long  been  used  to  consider  the 
sword  as  the  only  legitimate  sceptre,  by  which  the  world  should  or 
could  be  governed,  they  forget  that  there  is  any  power  in  enlightened 
public  opinion. 

“ A reference  to  a third  power  of  all  such  controversies  as  could 
be  safely  confided  to  any  tribunal  unknown  to  the  constitution  of  our 
country,”  has  been  already  recommended  by  tlie  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations.  The  Executive  of  the  country  has  already  shown  its  con- 
cuirence  by  frequently  submitting  disputes  between  the  United  States 
and  other  nations  to  the  crowned  heads  of  Europe.  This  course  has 
received  the  decided  approbation  of  our  own  country,  and  elicited  the 
admiration  of  the  whole  Christian  and  civilized  world.  The  only 
questions,  then,  which  remain,  are  these : 

1.  Whetlier  this  course  should  continue  to  be  an  occasional  measure, 
or  become  a systematic  and  general  rule  ? 

2.  Whether  the  judges,  or  umpires,  in  tliese  cases  are  to  act  by  the 
immediate  impression  of  truth  or  error  on  their  minds,  or  be  governed 
in  their  decisions  by  known  and  acknowledged  principles  and  laws, 
recognized  and  adopted  by  the  parties  in  controversy  ^ 

3.  Whether  we  should  continue  to  leave  our  disputes  to  the  monarchs 
of  Europe,  singly  and  individually,  or  to  a body  of  jurists,  selected  from 
the  different  states  composing  the  proposed  confederation,  already 
distinguished  for  their  legal  talents  and  integrity. 

On  these  three  topics,  your  petitioners  would  briefly  remark: 

1.  Though  an  occasional  reference  to  a third  power  is  good,  a settled 
and  regulated  practice  is  far  better,  and  much  more  likely  to  result  in  the 
peace  and  happiness  of  mankind.  Were  there  a regular  and  acknowl- 
edged tribunal,  always  ready  to  judge  the  cases  brought  before  it, 
governments  would  be  compelled,  by  their  own  constituents,  and  by 
the  opinion  of  the  world,  to  resort  to  it,  rather  than  to  the  expensive, 
barbarous,  and  uncertain  decision  of  the  sword.  If  the  antagonist 
party  should  refuse  to  comply,  he  would  find  but  little  sympathy  for 


* Mr.  Legare’s  Report  on  this  subject  to  the  last  session  of  Congress. 


175 


APPENDIX. 


683 


the  disasters  which  might  befall  him  in  the  course  of  the  war,  and  be 
glad  to  make  peace  by  the  intervention  of  such  a tribunal. 

2.  Such  is  the  infirmity  of  human  nature,  such  its  liability  to  be 
infiuenced  by  selfish  motives,  that  every  possible  guard  should  be 
provided  against  errors  of  judgment  arising  from  such  causes.  Now, 
a code  of  international  laws,  settled  upon  abstract  principles,  before  the 
occurrence  of  any  case  to  warp  the  judgment  of  the  framers  of  such 
laws,  adopted  by  the  compact  and  agreement  of  the  nations  generally, 
especially,  if  the  contending  nations  should  happen  to  be  parties  to  the 
compact,  would  add  greatly  to  the  probability  of  a just  decision  by  the 
proposed  court  of  nations. 

3.  It  appears  almost  an  anomaly  that  the  United  States,  “ the  only 
republic  in  the  world,”  * should  Continue  to  leave  its  disputes  with 
other  powers  to  monarchs,  who  are  busy  with  their  own  affairs,  and 
who  may  have  difficulties  of  their  own  to  be  settled  by  the  mediation  of 
our  opponent.  Such  was  the  fact  in  the  case  of  our  north-east  boun- 
dary question.  Ought  we  not  to  prefer  a tribunal  composed  of  men 
free  from  the  cares  of  state,  the  intrigues  of  courts,  and  controversies 
of  their  own  with  other  nations  ; men  with  an  established  reputation, 
knowing  that  the  peaceful  execution  of  their  serltence  depends  not 
only  on  the  correctness  of  their  judgment,  but  on  their  power  to  make 
it  appear  just  to  the  world ; that  on  their  ability  to  make  and  vindicate 
a correct  decision,  depends  their  present  and  future  reputation  ? The 
Governor  of  tlie  State  of  Maine  told  one  of  your  petitioners,  that  he  is 
morally  certain,  that  if  the  north-east  boundary  question  had  been 
left  to  such  a tribunal  as  we  contemplate,  the  case  would  long  ago 
have  been  settled  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  this  country. 

If  “judges  do  more  than  pronounce  and  enforce  judgment  in  partic- 
ular cases,”  if  “those  opinions  are  the  basis  of  all  government  and 
legislation,”  as  is  conceded  by  the  author  of  the  very  able  report  already 
alluded  to,  how  very  superior  must  be  a bench  of  able  jurists,  of 
acknowledged  talents  and  integi'ity,  to  individual  umpires,  chosen 
rather  for  their  station  than  their  talents,  and  liable  to  have  their 
judgment  warped  by  a thousand  extraneous  circumstances. 

Recent  events  afford  a good  opportunity  of  showing  the  excellency 
of  the  plan  proposed  by  your  petitioners.  France  claims  from  Mexico 
an  indemnity  of  about  $700,000.  Mexico  denies  the  justice  of  the 
claim,  and  refuses  to  pay.  France  blockades  her  ports,  and  shuts  out 
all  other  nations  from  their  accustomed  commerce.  England  complains 
of  the  blockade  as  an  infringement  on  her  rights,  and  argues  that 


Mr.  Legare’s  Report. 


684 


APPENDIX. 


176 


France  has  no  right  thus  to  injure  Mexico,  and  through  her,  all  other 
commercial  powers,  until  she  has  inflicted  a still  greater  injury  on 
Mexico,  by  seizing  her  commerce,  and  declaring  war.  Then,  it  is 
contended,  France  would  have  a right  to  capture  neutral  vessels 
trading  to  Mexican  ports.  Now,  were  there  a Court  of  Nations,  France 
and  Mexico  would  have  submitted  the  case  to  it,  rather  than  experience 
so  great  inconvenience  for  so  small  a sum ; and  had  there  been  a code 
of  international  laws,  the  right  of  France  to  blockade,  or  of  neutral 
nations  to  trade  to,  the  ports  of  Mexico,  would  have  been  clearly 
defined.  For  want  of  these,  war  may  commence  between  France  and 
Mexico,  and  extend  to  Great  Britain  and  all  the  commercial  world. 

The  General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  one  of  the  most  numerous  and 
enlightened  legislative  bodies  in  the  world,  has  had  this  subject  under 
consideration  for  five  years  past.  At  first,  the  plan  was  treated  as  the 
phantasy  of  a benevolent  enthusiast.  Discussion  threw  light  upon  it. 
Resolves  recommending  a Congress  of  Nations  to  the  attention  of  our 
National  Executive,  and  “to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States, 
inviting  their  expression  of  sentiment  and  cooperation  in  favor  of  the 
end  in  view,”  passed  the  Senate  of  that  State  in  the  year  1837,  by  a 
majority  of  nearly  six  to  one.  Last  year,  similar  resolves  passed  both 
branches  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  with  only  two  dissenting 
voices.  The  American  Peace  Society  waited  for  that  joyful  consum- 
mation, ere  they  ventured  to  bring  this  subject  before  the  collected 
wisdom  of  the  nation.  But  the  New  York  Peace  Society  has  antici- 
pated us,  and  the  subject  has  received  from  your  honorable  bodies  a 
more  kind  and  respectful  attention  than  they  had  expected  on  its  first 
presentation.  When  the  Congress  of  the  Union  shall  have  given  the 
subject  as  continued  and  mature  deliberation  as  the  General  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  probably  the  same  results  will  follow. 

Were  our  contemplated  plan  to  involve  great  expense,  we  might, 
perhaps,  pause  before  we  presented  it  to  the  consideration  of  Congress ; 
but  the  share  of  expense,  falling  on  this  country,  would  not  maintain  a 
single  gun-boat.  One  ship  of  the  line  would  cost  more  than  a Congress 
and  Court  of  Nations  for  the  whole  civilized  world.  We  should  soon 
be  a thousand  times  repaid  by  the  money  saved  in  the  preparation  for 
war ; and  our  agriculturists,  merchants,  manufacturers  and  fishermen 
would  reap  golden  harvests  from  the  increasing  wealth  of  their 
customers. 

If  this  enterprise  would  endanger  our  free  institutions,  we  ought  to 
pause  and  reflect  before  we  run  the  hazard  even  for  so  great  a good ; 
but  we  are  persuaded,  that  the  long-continued  peace,  which  must  be 
the  consequence  of  the  establishment  of  an  international  tribunal, 


177 


APPENDIX. 


685 


would  not  only  save  our  republic  from  its  greatest  danger,  but,  under 
God,  it  would  be  the  means  of  extending  the  principles  of  Cliristianity 
and  freedom  all  over  the  world. 

The  bare  attempt,  even  if  it  failed,  would  be  glorious.  It  would 
show  to  the  world  our  desire  for  the  peace  and  happiness  of  mankind. 
But  the  attempt  would  not  fail,  if  it  were  persevered  in,  so  as  to  be 
distinctly  seen  and  understood  by  the  people  of  Europe.  If  only  France 
and  Great  Britain  joined  us  at  first,  success  would  be  certain.  The 
work  has  already  begun  in  England.  France  will  follow.  God  has 
destined  this  country  to  take  the  lead  in  this  great  enterprise.  Let  us 
not  be  unmindful  of  our  high  destiny. 

From  the  abovementioned  considerations,  and  many  more  which 
could  be  urged,  your  petitioners  humbly  pray,  that  your  honorable 
bodies  would  take  such  action  in  the  premises,  as,  after  mature 
deliberation,  shall  appear  best  adapted  to  the  end  proposed. 


WILLIAM  LADD,  President. 


J.  P.  Blanchard, 
H.  Ware,  Jr., 
Amasa  Walker, 
Geo.  C.  Beckwith, 
L.  T.  Stoddard, 


John  Owen, 

James  K.  Whipple, 
Edward  Notes,  > 
Howard  Malcom, 


Executive 

Committee. 


No.  10. 

Second  Petition  of  the  JVew  York  Peace  Society. 

To  the  honorable,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled  on  the  first  Mon- 
day in  December,  1838: — The  undersigned,  members  of  the  New 
York  Peace  Society,  and  others  friendly  to  the  peace  cause,  respect- 
fully present  the  following  Petition  and  Memorial: 

Your  petitioners  pray  your  honorable  body  to  interpose  your  good 
offices  as  mediator  between  France  and  Mexico,  thereby  preventing,  if 
possible,  the  effusion  of  human  blood,  and  the  great  and  innumerable 
evils  of  war,  which,  without  some  interposition  of  the  kind,  are  almost 
sure  to  be  realized  from  the  present  relative  position  of  those  nations. 

“Two  nations,”  says  Vattel,  in  his  Law  of  Nations,  “though  equally 
weary  of  war,  often  continue  it  merely  from  the  fear  of  making  the 


686 


APPENDIX. 


178 


first  advances  to  an  accommodation,  as  these  might  be  imputed  to 
weakness ; or,  they  persist  in  it  from  animosity,  and  against  their  real 
interests.  Then,  common  friends  effectually  interpose,  offering  them- 
selves for  mediators.  And  there  cannot  be  a more  beneficent  office, 
than  that  of  reconciling  two  nations  at  war,  and  thus  putting  a stop  to 
tlie  effusion  of  human  blood.  This  is  an  indispensable  duty  to  those 
who  are  possessed  of  the  means  of  succeeding  in  it.”  Now,  the  pres- 
ent attitude  assumed  by  France  and  Mexico  in  relation  to  each  other, 
presents  a fair  case  for  interposition  of  the  kind.  It  is  hardly  to  be 
expected,  that,  in  the  present  stage  of  the  difficulty  between  those 
powers,  either  party  will  make  advances  towards  reconciliation.  Medi- 
ation, therefore,  is  imperatively  demanded  in  tliis  instance,  by  the 
interests  of  human  nature.  And  who  so  suitable  for  this  office  in  the 
case  before  us,  as  the  government  of  the  United  States.^ — a country 
that  has  not  only  herself  repeatedly  received  the  benefit  of  the  friendly 
interposition  of  others  in  a similar  way,  but  that,  on  the  one  hand,  sees 
her  ancient  ally,  and,  on  the  other,  a sister  republic  of  our  own  hemis- 
phere, arrayed  in  fearful  hostility  against  each  other. 

Your  petitioners  further  pray  your  honorable  body  to  act  as  mediator 
in  general,  in  all  cases  of  international  difficulty  that  now  exist 
between  otlier  nations,  or  that  may  hereafter  occur,  while  tlie  relations 
of  nations  remain  in  their  present  state,  and  no  system  of  international 
arbitration  sliall  be  established. 

The  propriety,  the  praiseworthiness,  the  necessity,  and  the  duty,  of 
international  mediation  in  general,  are  admitted  on  all  hands.  “A 
nation  or  sovereign,”  says  Vattel,  “ought  to  promote  peace  as  much  as 
lies  within  their  power ; to  dissuade  others  from  breaking  it  without 
necessity ; to  exhort  them  to  a love  of  justice,  equity,  and  the  public 
tranquillity,  and  to  a love  of  peace.  It  is  one  of  the  best  offices  we 
can  perform  to  nations,  and  to  the  whole  universe.  What  a glorious 
and  amiable  appellation  is  that  of  peace-maker ! The  most  glorious 
period  of  Augustus’s  life  was,  when  he  shut  the  temple  of  Janus, 
adjusted  the  disputes  of  kings  and  nations,  and  gave  peace  to  the 
universe.”  Now,  above  all  others,  is  it  incumbent  on  these  United 
States  to  be  always  ready  to  promote  the  welfare  of  nations.  Do  not 
we  profess,  more  emphatically  than  others,  the  desire  to  see  all  nations 
in  the  enjoyment  of  freedom,  and  every  imaginable  blessing  ? High 
time,  indeed,  then,  is  it,  that  we  ceased  to  look  with  apparent  unconcern 
on  the  sanguinary  conflicts  of  nations,  while  monarchical  governments 
step  in  between  the  contending  parties,  as  ministers  of  mercy  and 
peace. 

Your  petitioners  still  further  pray  your  honorable  body,  to  adopt  for 


179 


APPENDIX. 


687 


this  government  the  principle  of  international  arbitration,  in  reference 
to  all  cases  of  dispute  between  the  United  States  and  other  powers, 
which  cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  by  the  parties  themselves.  The 
adoption  of  this  principle  by  your  honorable  body  would  follow  as  a 
legitimate  consequence,  from  the  character  which  you  would  assume 
in  acting  as  peace-maker  among  the  nations.  And,  moreover,  as  the 
propriety  of  this  principle  has  been  repeatedly  recognized  by  this 
government,  by  the  actual  reference  of  disputes  in  various  instances, 
this  furnishes  an  additional  reason  why  your  honorable  body  should 
make  it  a fixed  rule  of  action. 

Your  memorialists  feel  tliat  a few  words  are  requisite  in  relation  to 
this  point;  for, though  arbitration  is  occasionally  resorted  to  by  nations, 
war  as  a custom  nevertheless  continues. 

First,  tlien,  it  is  observable,  that  war  pays  no  regard  to  the  merits  of 
a case.  Its  rule  is  might,  not  right.  But  arbitration  does  consider 
those  merits.  Again ; the  stronger  party  being  more  likely  than  tlie 
weaker  to  be  the  aggressor,  a resort  to  war  in  the  case  renders  it  prob- 
able that  the  injured  party  will  receive  additional  injury,  instead  of 
obtaining  redress;  whereas,  by  arbitration,  that  party  would  in  all 
probability  obtain  redress.  In  cases  where  two  parties  are  nearly  equal 
in  strength,  by  resorting  to  war,  they  generally  leave  off  where  they 
begin,  nothing  being  decided,  and  both  parties  being  sadly  injured. 
Arbitration  in  such  cases,  also,  would  answer  a better  purpose  in  both 
respects.  And  in  cases  where  tlie  stronger  party  is  the  injured  one, 
although  by  a resort  to  war,  redress  is  generally  obtained,  how  hard 
the  way  of  obtaining  it ! Arbitration  would  afibrd  it  in  an  easier  way. 
In  every  case,  then,  the  ends  of  justice  are  better  subserved  by  arbi- 
tration than  by  war,  and  all  the  evils  of  war  are  prevented  besides. 
Furthermore ; war  is  an  infringement  of  the  independence  of  nations. 
Surely  it  is  such  an  infringement,  for  one  nation  to  dictate  to  another, 
and  to  attempt  to  enforce  its  dictation,  as  is  always  done  by  one  of  the 
parties  in  war.  But  arbitration  respects  national  sovereignty.  Here  is 
no  dictation,  no  coercion,  nothing  but  friendly  counsel.  Once  more ; 
by  resorting  to  war,  nations  violate  one  of  the  plainest  dictates  of 
reason,  viz.,  that  parties  should  not  be  judges  in  their  own  cases,  which 
they  always  assume  to  be  in  war.  Arbitration  respects  this  dictate,  by 
providing  a disinterested  party  as  a judge.  Then  again ; the  custom 
of  war  affords  the  strong  an  opportunity  to  oppress  the  Aveak,  and  the 
ambitious  to  pursue  their  schemes  of  conquest  and  aggrandizement 
Arbitration  is  a check  to  oppression  and  ambition,  and  the  best  security 
of  the  defenceless.  And  again ; the  custom  of  war,  by  which  nations 
take  their  position  on  what  they  denominate  the  point  of  honor,  refusing 


688 


APPENDIX. 


180 


to  make  the  proper  concessions  and  overtures  for  the  preservation  of 
peace,  and  sacrificing  justice  itself  to  resentment  and  pride,  is  one  vast 
system  of  duelling.  The  principle  of  international  arbitration  is  the 
principle  of  order  and  peace  on  a scale  of  equal  magnitude.  In  short, 
every  reason  that  can  be  urged  in  favor  of  the  peaceful  adjustment  of 
individual  disputes,  and  against  a resort  to  individual  violence,  can  be 
urged  with  as  much  greater  force  in  favor  of  international  arbitration, 
and  against  war,  as  the  evils  of  war  exceed  in  every  respect  the  evils 
resulting  from  individual  combat  Now,  then,  if  the  ends  of  justice 
itself  can  be  better  subserved  by  arbitration  than  by  war,  and  so  much 
evil  be  prevented,  and  so  much  good  done,  what  plea  remains  for  war  ? 

Your  petitioners  yet  further  pray,  that  your  honorable  body  propose 
to  tlie  various  governments  of  the  world,  to  appoint  suitable  persons  as 
delegates,  to  assemble  in  congress  or  convention  with  delegates  from 
the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  a code  of  international 
law,  obligatory  on  such  nations  as  may  subsequently  adopt  it,  and  of 
acting  as  a board  of  arbitration,  or  a court  of  equity  and  honor,  in  cases 
of  dispute  between  nations  which  may  from  time  to  time  be  subnutted 
to  their  consideration. 

The  present  law  of  nations,  so  called,  is  in  a very  unsettled  condition. 
Many  of  its  principles  are  matters  of  dispute,  the  writers  on  interna- 
tional law  disagreeing  among  themselves.  Nor  have  they  any  official 
authority,  even  did  they  agree.  Neither  is  it  competent  for  any  one 
government  to  regulate  the  matter.  Hence,  an  international  tribunal 
is  the  only  resource  that  remains,  to  set  these  things  in  order,  and  to 
furnish  nations  with  a suitable  code  of  international  law.  We  say 
international  law,  because  we  do  not  propose  that  the  contemplated 
tribunal  shall  interfere  with  the  internal  concerns  of  nations.  We  only 
say,  that  some  conamon  tribunal  is  necessary,  to  lay  down  general  and 
definite  rules  for  the  observance  of  nations  in  their  intercourse  with 
one  another.  Should  these  rules  contain  any  thing  objectionable,  any 
nation  could  refuse  to  adopt  that  objectionable  part  This  conservative 
principle  would  be  a sufficient  guard  against  encroachment  on  national 
rights,  and  would  tend  to  the  production  of  an  equitable  code  on  the 
part  of  the  tribunal.  Should  some  nations  eventually  refuse  to  ratify 
it,  this  would  not  render  it  abortive  ; for  those  nations  that  tvould  ratify 
it  could  make  it  their  rule  in  their  intercourse  with  one  another,  leaving 
things  as  they  now  are  in  relation  to  the  non-concurring  powers,  till 
they  might  see  fit  to  adopt  it. 

If  it  is  indispensable  to  society,  that  civil  law  be  expressed  in  the 
form  of  a code,  how  great  the  necessity  of  having  an  international 
code.  “The  law  of  nations,”  says  Vattel,  “is  as  much  above  the  civil 


181 


APPENDIX. 


689 


law  in  its  importance,  as  the  proceedings  of  nations  and  sovereigns 
surpass  in  their  consequences  those  of  private  persons.”  How  plain, 
how  explicit,  then,  ought  the  law  of  nations  to  be ! How  guarded  at 
every  point ! How  fixed  and  acknowledged  its  principles  ! And  yet, 
strange  to  say,  this  law,  all-important  as  it  is,  has  never,  as  yet,  so 
much  as  been  put  into  the  form  of  a code,  and  many  of  its  principles 
themselves  remain  matters  of  dispute,  and  have  been  the  frequent 
occasion  of  war! 

That  a nation,  under  the  existing  state  of  things,  has  sometimes 
acted  in  opposition  to  the  general  sentiment,  and  disregarded  rules 
which  others  have  thought  proper  to  observe,  is  so  far  from  being  an 
argument  against  embodying  international  law  in  a code,  that  it  is  the 
very  reverse.  A disputed  principle  of  international  law  is  not  an 
established  part  of  it;  hence  the  necessity  of  having  its  principles 
settled,  and  the  admitted  law  of  nations  explicitly  expressed  and 
recognized.  But  as  the  matter  now  stands,  any  nation  may  disregard 
what  others  choose  to  consider  the  law  of  nations.  For,  under  what 
obligation  is  an  independent  nation  to  regard  the  opinions  of  unauthor- 
ized writers  on  the  duties  of  nations,  or  to  make  the  practice  of  other 
nations  an  example  for  itself.^ 

But  do  your  memorialists,  in  proposing  the  formation  of  a code  of 
international  law,  necessarily  involve  the  idea  of  innovation  upon  tlie 
established  usages  and  the  acknowledged  principles  of  nations  ? By 
no  means.  The  present  law  of  nations  could  be  thrown  into  the  form 
of  a code,  without  a single  alteration ; and  that  code,  duly  recognized 
by  the  nations,  would  be  binding.  Here  would  be  a definite  and  cer- 
tain rule ; and  even  this  would  be  a desideratum.  But  your  memorialists 
would  have,  if  practicahle,  some  improvement  made  in  its  principles. 
They  would  at  least  have  an  attempt  made  to  improve  them.  They 
would  have  suitable  delegates  from  the  various  nations  convene,  and 
discuss  and  investigate  principles,  and  see  if  they  could  not  agree  upon 
some  improvement;  and  if  they  could  not  do  this,  then  let  them 
explicitly  state  the  principles  on  which  they  might  agree,  and  this 
would  form  a definite  code.  Some  who  have  no  confidence  in  the 
utility  of  a code  of  the  kind,  admit  that  “ it  could  scarcely  do  any 
harm.”  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  a trial  of  the  experiment  could  safely 
be  made,  why  should  it  not  be  done,  and  thus  afford  the  opportunity  of 
bringing  its  supposed  advantages  to  the  test  ? And  the  more  especially 
so,  when,  as  they  admit,  “the  authority  of  law,  once  established  and 
acknowledged  among  men,  is  second  only  to  that  of  religion.”  Cer- 
tainly, if  this  is  so,  incalculable  good  would  result  from  a wise  code  of 
international  law,  enacted  by  an  authorized  tribunal,  and  ratified  by  the 
nations  themselves. 


87 


690 


APPENDIX. 


182 


The  propriety  of  the  principle  of  international  arbitration  being 
admitted,  your  memorialists  have  only  to  show,  that  the  mode  of  arbitra- 
tion which  they  propose  is  the  preferable  one.  And  they  are  at  a loss 
to  perceive  how  any  one,  after  due  consideration,  can  fail  to  see,  that  a 
council  composed  of  the  statesmen,  tire  sages,  the  philantlrropists,  the 
master-minds  of  earth,  having  nought  to  divide  their  attention,  and 
acting  in  accordance  with  a well-digested  code,  would  be  as  much 
superior  to  a temporary,  individual  arbitrator,  looking  uncounteracted 
to  his  own  interest,  burthened  with  the  affairs  of  state,  and  having  to 
form  a decision  under  the  disadvantage  of  unsettled  principles  of 
international  law,  as  can  well  be  conceived. 

The  establishment  of  a system  of  international  arbitration,  and  of  a 
Congress  of  Nations,  as  proposed  by  your  memorialists,  would  likewise 
have  great  advantages  over  mere  temporary  arbitration  in  other  respects. 
Let  it  be  the  understanding,  that  nations  are  uniformly  to  refer  their 
disputes,  and  let  there  be  a tribunal  established  to  which  to  refer  them, 
and  the  various  powers  would  then  feel  safe  in  making  a great  reduc- 
tion of  their  naval  and  military  forces,  and  arbitration  would  be  resorted 
to  without  waiting  for  war  to  commence.  Whereas,  without  any  such 
system  and  organization,  arbitration  being  ordy  occasional,  it  is  seldom 
resorted  to  till  after  the  commencement  of  hostilities,  and  then  but 
occasionally,  just  as  chance  or  caprice  may  happen  to  direct.  Under 
such  circumstances,  peace  cannot  be  insured,  governments  will  not 
feel  safe  in  reducing  their  forces,  and  thus  will  the  war-system  continue. 
Who,  then,  can  fail  to  give  the  preference  to  the  mode  of  arbitration 
proposed  by  your  memorialists  ? 

Some  who  object  to  such  a board  of  arbitrators  say,  that  the  proba- 
bility is,  that  its  decrees  “ would  be  merely  nugatory.”  But  why 
nugatory  ? In  cases  of  ordinary  arbitration,  decisions  in  general  are 
not  nugatory,  though  no  compulsion  is  used.  Why,  then,  would  the 
decisions  of  the  contemplated  tribunal  be  nugatory  ? Should  this, 
however,  be  the  result,  no  harm  would  be  done,  to  say  the  least.  That 
something,  nay,  that  much,  ivould  be  accomplished,  is  evident  from  the 
consideration,  that  “judges  not  only  pass  judgment  in  particular  cases, 
but  shape  the  opinions  of  mankind  in  analogous  ones ; ” and  that  “ those 
opinions  are  the  basis  of  all  government  and  legislation.” 

But  then  it  is  feared,  that  if  it  did  have  any  influence,  that  influence 
would  be  “perverted  to  the  worst  ends.”  Your  memorialists  are  at  a 
loss  to  perceive  how  this  would  be  possible.  The  tribunal  under  con- 
sideration would  only  be  called  upon  to  decide  cases  of  external  dispute 
between  nations,  not  those  involving  principles  of  government,  or  any 
vital  principles  whatever;  in  short,  nothing  that  would  be  calculated  to 
call  into  exercise  the  monarchical  or  the  republican  sympathies  of  any 


183 


APPENDIX. 


691 


of  its  members — nothing  that  a monarchy  and  a democracy  would 
hesitate  to  submit  to  the  arbitration  of  a crowned  head  of  a kingdom, 
or  an  uncrowned  head  of  a republic.  Who  dreams  of  submitting  to 
arbitration,  whether  a nation  shall  have  a monarchical  or  a republican 
form  of  government,  or  surrender  its  independence,  or  be  interfered 
with  in  any  manner  whatever,  where  others  are  not  concerned  ? Cer- 
tainly, not  your  memorialists ! They  merely  propose,  that  such  points 
as  are  proper  subjects  for  international  arbitration,  be  referred  to  a 
tribunal  of  the  kind  already  designated,  instead  of  a temporary,  indi- 
vidual arbitrator,  or  the  sword.  Where  the  danger  in  this  ? the  more 
especially,  as  the  parties  would  only  be  bound  in  honor  to  regard  decis- 
ions manifestly  jmt.  This  provision  would  tend  to  the  production  of 
righteous  decisions  on  the  part  of  the  tribunal,  inasmuch  as  unrighteous 
ones,  under  such  circumstances,  would  effect  nothing  but  the  disgrace 
of  that  body  itself.  With  far  greater  propriety,  therefore,  might  the 
plea  of  danger  be  made,  in  submitting  the  disputes  of  individuals  to 
courts  of  justice,  whereby  they  are  compelled  to  regard  decisions,  than 
in  this  case  of  nations.  The  decisions  of  the  proposed  tribunal  would 
evidently  have  all  the  efficacy  they  ought  to  have,  and  no  more.  They 
would  have  only  a moral  influence,  and  that  just  in  proportion  to  their 
rectitude.  Thus,  while  national  independence  would  remain  inviolate, 
the  fulfilment  of  national  obligation  would  be  secured. 

Your  memorialists  are  not  a little  surprised,  that  the  project  of 
Henry  IV  should  be  seriously  compared  with  the  plan  by  them  recom- 
mended, and  be  pronounced  far  superior  in  point  of  practical  wisdom. 
Whether  a scheme  to  revolutionize  all  Christendom ; to  subjugate  and 
partition  the  dominant  power  of  the  day ; to  change  the  boundaries  of 
states,  and  apply  to  them  the  leveling  principle  of  agrarianism ; thereby 
interfering  with  the  sovereignty  and  other  primary  rights  of  nations, 
and  introducing  innovations  and  changes  without  number;  is  more 
evincive  of  practical  wisdom,  than  a proposition  to  draw  out  the  law  of 
nations  into  the  form  of  a code,  and  to  reduce  the  present  practice  of 
nations  with  regard  to  arbitration  to  an  orderly  system,  as  proposed  by 
your  memorialists,  is  for  your  honorable  body  to  decide. 

Nor  less  are  your  memorialists  surprised,  that  it  should  be  asserted, 
that  the  famous  Amphictyonic  Conucil  “had  no  effect  whatever  in 
healing  the  dissensions  of  the  Grecian  commonwealths.”  In  relation 
to  this  Council,  Rees  says,  “Their  determinations  were  received  with 
the  greatest  veneration,  and  were  even  held  sacred  and  inviolable.” 
Rollin  says,  “ The  authority  of  the  Amphictyons  had  always  been  of 
great  weight  in  Greece ; but  it  began  to  decline  exceedingly,  from  the 
moment  they  condescended  to  admit  Philip  of  Macedon  into  their 
body.”  Just  as  your  memorialists  would  have  it.  A case  more  to  their 


692 


APPENDIX. 


184 


purpose  could  not  be  conceived.  The  decisions  of  that  Council  were 
etRcacious  exactly  in  proportion  to  their  equity ; and  they  lost  their 
influence  when  the  Macedonian  began  to  peiwert  it. 

The  assertion,  that  the  Germanic  Diet  accomplished  nothing  for  the 
pacification  of  the  states  of  Germany,  is  equally  at  variance  with  his- 
tory. For  three  hundred  years,  the  German  empire  had  been  the  theatre 
of  barbarism  and  anarcliy ; when  Maximilian  I accomplished  what  his 
predecessors  had  so  long  attempted  in  vain.  “In  1495,”  says  tire 
Encyclopajdia  Americana,  “ lie  liad  put  an  end  to  the  internal  troubles 
and  violence,  by  the  perpetual  peace  of  the  empire,  decreed  by  the 
Diet  of  Worms.” 

Your  memorialists  would  here  bring  into  view  tlie  auspicious  results 
emanating  from  the  system  of  arbitration  adopted  by  the  Flelvetic 
Union.  “The  Swiss,”  says  Vattel,  “have  had  the  precaution,  in  all 
their  alliances  among  themselves,  and  even  in  those  they  have  con- 
tracted with  the  neighboring  powers,  to  agree  beforehand  on  the 
manner  in  which  their  disputes  were  to  be  submitted  to  arbitrators,  in 
case  they  could  not  adjust  them  in  an  amicable  manner.  This  wise 
precaution  lias  not  a little  contributed  to  maintain  the  Helvetic  repub- 
lic in  that  flourishing  state  which  secures  its  liberty,  and  renders  it 
respectable  throughout  Europe.”  The  same  writer,  in  allusion  to  inter- 
national arbitration,  &c.,  says,  “ In  order  to  put  in  practice  any  of  these 
methods,  it  is  necessary  to  speak  with  each  other,  and  to  confer  together. 
Conferences  and  congresses  are  then  a way  of  reconciliation  which 
the  law  of  nature  recommends  to  nations,  as  proper  to  put  an  amicable 
period  to  their  differences.”  Thus  is  the  idea  of  a Congress  of  Nations 
sanctioned  by  the  law  of  nations.  Not  only  so : the  practice  of  nations 
sanctions  it.  From  1()44,  to  1814,  there  were  more  than  thirty  convo- 
cations of  temporary  Congresses  of  Nations,  embracing  various  states 
of  Europe.  “Wars  have  been  terminated  by  them;  conflicting  juris- 
dictions have  been  settled ; boundaries  have  been  ascertained ; com- 
mercial conventions  have  been  formed ; and,  in  various  ways,  the 
interests  of  friendly  intercourse  have  been  promoted.”  Your  memori- 
alists, therefore,  in  proposing  the  establishment  of  a Congress  of 
Nations,  are  far  from  acting  the  part  of  visionary  innovators;  they 
merely  propose  an  improvement  of  a present  international  regulation. 
They  propose,  that,  instead  of  temporary  congresses,  convened  after 
war  has  done  its  bloody  work,  there  be  a permanent  Congress  io  p-event 
war — a body  of  sages  and  philanthropists  always  ready,  to  whom  to 
refer  disputes  before  war,  rather  than  after  it.  This  is  the  sum  of  the 
whole  matter.  And  what  is  there  visionary  or  impracticable  in  it? 
What  is  there  in  it  that  is  not  decidedly  better  than  the  present  state 
of  things?  This  improvement  in  international  jurisprudence,  this 


185 


APPENDIX. 


693 


advance  upon  preceding  ages,  is  due  from  this  very  generation  to  the 
enlightened  period  in  which  we  live.  Your  memorialists  can  but 
think,  that  the  venerable  Franklin  had  some  such  plan  in  view  when 
he  said,  “We  daily  make  great  improvements  in  natural,  there  is  one  I 
wish  to  see  in  moral,  philosophy ; the  discovery  of  a plan  that  would 
induce  and  oblige  nations  to  settle  their  disputes  without  first  cutting 
one  another’s  throats.”  Something  of  the  kind  the  illustrious  Jefferson 
seems  likewise  to  have  had  in  view,  when,  in  speaking  of  the  inefficiency 
of  war  in  redressing  wrong,  and  of  its  multiplying,  instead  of  indemni- 
fying, losses,  he  exclaimed,  “ These  truths  are  palpable,  and  must,  in 
the  progress  of  time,  have  their  influence  on  the  minds  and  conduct  of 
nations !”  And  in  authorizing  his  name  to  be  registered  among  the 
names  of  the  members  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  he  gave 
still  stronger  testimony  in  favor  of  pacific  principles  and  measures. 

Before  coming  to  a close,  your  memorialists  would  introduce  to  the 
notice  of  your  honorable  body  what  will  no  doubt,  ere-long,  be  present- 
ed in  an  official  form ; relating  as  it  does,  directly  to  the  subject  now 
under  consideration,  and  having  a most  important  bearing  on  it. 

The  Legislature  of  the  noble  and  enlightened  State  of  Massachu- 
setts have  recently  adopted  a report,  and  sundry  resolutions  of  a 
committee  of  that  body,  by  a unanimous  vote  in  the  House,  and  with 
only  five  dissenting  votes  in  the  Senate,  and  consequently  without 
distinction  of  sect  or  party,  in  which  they  entirely  coincide  with  your 
memorialists  in  their  views. 

[As  this  part  of  the  memorial,  consisting  of  extracts  from  the  above- 
mentioned  report,  and  the  resolutions  appended  to  it,  has  appeared  in  a 
previous  article,  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  it.] 

Thus,  not  only  your  memorialists,  but  virtually  whole  States,  already 
call  on  your  honorable  body  to  adopt  the  system  of  pacification  desig- 
nated in  this  memorial.  Nay,  your  memorialists  doubt  not,  that  could 
the  universal  sentiment  be  ascertained,  nine-tenths  of  the  human  race 
wonld  be  found  to  accord  with  these  views.  Your  memorialists,  there- 
fore, present  this  document  to  your  honorable  body,  as  the  representation 
of  the  views  and  wishes  of  their  race,  in  regard  to  this  great  subject; 
and  in  the  nameof  human  nature  they  implore  you  to  grant  these  requests. 

Your  memorialists  fear  they  have  already  trespassed  on  the  patience 
of  your  honorable  body,  by  their  very  extended  remarks.  They  trust, 
however,  that  the  immense  importance  of  the  subject  will  serve  as  a 
sufficient  excuse  for  the  great  length  of  this  memorial.  And  they  only 
further  hope,  that  your  lionorable  body  will  give  it  attention  according 
to  that  importance.  Should  this  be  the  case,  they  are  under  no  appre- 
hensions with  regard  to  the  result.  And  your  memorialists,  as  in  duty 
bound,  will  ever  pray. 


694 


APPENDIX. 


186 


No.  11. 

Third  Petition  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 

States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  1839-40. 

The  undersigned.  President  and  Executive  Committee  of  the  Amer- 
ican Peace  Society,  by  the  authority,  and  in  behalf  of  that  Society, 
present  the  following  petition : 

Your  petitioners,  being  more  persuaded  than  ever,  that  the  frequency 
of  war  may  be  lessened,  its  sufferings  abated,  and  the  custom  of  war 
finally  banished  from  the  community  of  free  and  enlightened  nations, 
and  a more  equitable,  safe  and  cheap  method  for  settling  international 
disputes  substituted  in  its  place,  would  once  more  call  the  attention  of 
your  honorable  bodies  to  that  most  important  subject, — a Congress  of 
Nations.  They  have  nothing  to  add  to  the  unanswerable  arguments  of 
former  petitions  on  this  subject,  and  they  lament  that  the  short  duration 
of  the  last  session  of  Congress  prevented  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  whom  tlieir  own,  and  many  other  petitions  on  the  subject 
were  referred,  from  making  a report  on  the  answer  of  your  petitioners, 
and  otliers  from  different  parts  of  the  Union,  to  the  objections  to  this 
great  and  benevolent  enterprise,  which  were  brought  against  it  by  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  preceding  session 
of  CongTess.  The  Committee  were  probably  so  much  occupied  with 
the  many  important  topics  brought  before  them  during  the  short 
session  of  Congress,  that  they  had  not  time  thoroughly  to  examine  the 
subject.  If  they  had  examined  it,  they  probably  would  have  come  to 
the  same  result  with  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  who  two  years 
ago  almost  unanimously  recommended  the  subject  to  the  attention  of 
Congress,jby  a report  and  resolves  sent  on  last  year  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  which  want  of  time  probably  prevented  him  from 
laying  before  Congress. 

The  question  of  our  north-eastern  boundary  is  still  unsettled  and  is 
likely  to  remain  so  for  years  to  come  ; and  may  bring  on  a war  between 
two  of  the  most  enlightened  nations  in  the  world, — a war,  which  so  far 
from  settling  the  question,  would  only  encumber  it  with  new  difficul- 
ties to  be  settled  by  another  umpire,  whose  decision  would  be  as  liable 
to  be  rejected  as  the  last;  and  thus  it  may  continue  to  be  the  bone  of 
contention  between  the  two  countries,  until  they  see  the  futility  of 
expecting  an  individual,  however  learned  and  discriminating,  to  settle 
a question  which  may  require  the  united  wisdom  of  a whole  bench  of 
judges,  long  used  to  weigh  conflicting  evidences  in  the  scales  of  jus- 
tice ; and,  from  their  exalted  situation,  elevated  above  all  national  and 


187 


APPENDIX. 


695 


political  feelings,  able  not  only  to  give  a right  decision,  but  to  make 
that  decision  plain  and  satisfactory  to  the  parties  concerned,  and  to  the 
world  at  large.  The  opinion  has  been  expressed  by  some  of  the  ex- 
governors of  the  State  of  Maine,  that  had  such  a Court  of  Nations  as 
that  which  we  contemplate  existed,  the  difficulties  of  our  north-eastern 
boundary  would  long  ago  have  been  settled  to  our  entire  satisfaction. 

The  plan  proposed  by  your  petitioners  is  two-fold.  One  part  consists 
of  a Congress  of  Ambassadors  from  all  those  Christian  and  civilized 
nations  who  may  choose  to  be  represented  there,  for  the  purpose  of 
settling  such  points  of  the  law  of  nations,  as  they  may  be  able  to  agree 
upon,  in  a mutual  treaty  between  all  the  powers  represented,  which, 
like  any  other  treaty,  might  be  ratified  or  rejected  by  the  nations 
concerned.  The  other  part  is  the  organization,  by  that  Congress,  of  a 
Court  of  Nations  for  the  adjustment  of  such  cases  of  international 
difficulties  as  might  be  brouglit  before  it  by  the  mutual  consent  of  any 
two  or  more  conflicting  nations,  without  resort  to  arms.  This  is  the 
outline  of  our  plan.  The  details  may  be  filled  up  by  the  wisdom  of  the 
present  and  succeeding  ages.  The  whole  plan  may  be  adopted,  or 
either  part  of  it;  for  one  is  not  necessarily  dependent  on  the  other. 
They  may  exist  separately,  or  both  together,  as  should  be  thought  best. 
But  the  two  great  objects  should  never  be  lost  sight  of,  viz.,  1st.  The 
settlement  of  the  principles  of  international  law  by  compact  and  agree- 
ment after  mature  deliberation ; leaving  them  no  longer  to  be  decided 
by  the  conflicting  opinions  of  unauthorized  writers  on  the  law  of 
nations.  2d.  Some  better  method  than  the  sword,  or  occasional  arbi- 
tration, for  the  settlement  of  the  disputes  of  Christian  and  civilized 
nations ; such  as  a high  Court  composed  of  the  most  celebrated  civilians 
and  jurisconsults  of  the  countries  represented  in  a Congress  of  Nations. 
The  plan  is  so  simple,  and  the  evils  to  be  remedied  so  great,  that  the 
only  difficulty  seems  to  be  in  making  men  believe  that  so  great  a cure 
can  be  performed  by  such  simple  means,  which,  after  all,  is  but  a step 
or  two  in  the  increasing  practice  of  arbitrating  international  difficulties. 

This  subject  has  been  much  discussed  in  New  England  and  New 
York ; and,  where  best  understood,  it  is  most  appreciated.  It  has  also 
received  the  attention  of  the  British  public,  and  has  been  agitated  on 
the  continent  of  Europe.  Should  the  government  of  these  United 
States  invite  Great  Britain  and  France  to  join  in  this  great  and  benev- 
olent enterprise,  and  these  three  powers  only  should  commence  the 
work,  most  of  the  other  powers  of  Europe  and  the  South  American 
republics  would  soon  follow ; and  a new  era  would  dawn  on  the  world  : 
right  would  take  the  place  of  might ; wars,  in  a great  measure,  would 
cease  in  Christendom ; and  peace  and  happiness  would  generally  pervade 
the  world. 


696 


APPENDIX. 


188 


The  American  Peace  Society  is  not  alone  in  this  affair,  as  is  abun- 
dantly testified  by  the  numerous  petitions  presented  to  the  last  two 
sessions  of  Congress  on  this  subject,  not  only  by  peace  societies,  but 
by  men  who  are  not  members  of  any  peace  society,  but  who  desire  the 
happiness  of  their  fellow-creatures,  and  the  honor  and  prosperity  of 
their  country;  and  we  expect  that  numerous  petitions  will  be  presented 
to  Congress  at  their  present  session,  if  our  fellow-citizens  have  not 
become  discouraged  by  the  neglect  of  their  petitions  last  winter ; for 
almost  every  one  who  understands  the  subject,  readily  gives  his  assent 
to  it. 

Deeply  impressed  with  these  views  of  the  subject,  your  petitioners 
humbly  pray  that  their  petition  may  be  committed  to  a special  Commit- 
tee, with  directions  to  examine  and  report  on  the  subject. 

WILLIAM  LADD,  President. 

J.  P.  Blanchard,  John  Owen, 

Geo.  C.  Beckwith,  J.  W.  Parker, 

Edward  Noyes,  James  K.  Whipple, 


Executive 

Committee. 


No.  12. 


Form  of  a Petition  written  and  circidated  hy  the  Friends  of  Peace  in 
different  parts  of  the  country. 

To  the  Honorable  tlie  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 

United  States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled: 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  [Portsmouth,  in  the  State  of  New 
Hampsliire,]  respectfully  present  the  following  Memorial  and  Petition: 

It  is  a growing  sentiment  among  men  of  all  classes  and  professions, 
that  international  war  is  as  needless  as  it  is  confessed  to  be  ruinous  to 
the  resources  and  morals  of  a people.  This  opinion  is  now  defended, 
not,  as  formerly,  on  religious  grounds  solely,  and  by  the  members  of 
individual  sects  of  Christians,  but  on  grounds  of  general  expediency 
and  policy,  and  by  many  who  view  or  treat  the  subject  only  in  its 
political  aspects.  But  with  this  progress  of  public  sentiment,  recent 
events  have  shown  us  that  the  causes  of  war  are  not  removed ; but  our 
country  was,  during  the  last  year,  brought  alarmingly  near  a state  of 
hostility  with  the  very  power  with  which,  of  all  others,  a common 
parentage  and  language,  and  the  closest  financial  and  commercial 
relations,  invite  us  to  cultivate  a pacific  intercourse. 


189 


APPENDIX. 


697 


The  most  fruitful  causes  of  war  flow  from  the  unsettled  state  of 
international  law.  The  existence  of  international  law  is  recognized, 
and  its  requisitions  are  professedly  held  as  binding  by  all  the  civilized 
governments  of  Europe  and  America. 

International  law,  in  its  original  growth,  has  been  justly  compared  to 
the  conunon  law  of  England  and  of  most  of  these  United  States.  It 
has  no  recognized  code ; but  is  the  creature  of  precedent,  and  individual 
opinion  and  authority.  It  is,  therefore,  like  the  common  law,  ever  in 
the  process  of  creation.  Of  the  latter,  it  has  been  said,  with  truth,  that 
“the  courts  make  it,  instead  of  being  governed  by  it.”  And  so  may  it 
be  said  of  international  law,  that,  while  it  is  ostensibly  the  basis  of  all 
diplomatic  intercourse,  the  nations  make  it  by  every  new  demand, 
compromise  or  treaty.  A system  of  law,  thus  perpetually  in  transitu, 
must,  of  necessity,  be  indefinite,  and  liable  to  opposing  constructions. 
Moreover,  there  must  necessarily  be,  both  within  nations  and  between 
nations,  however  strict  and  thorough  the  statuary  provisions,  a common 
law,  a law  of  precedent  and  authority,  perpetually  growing  up.  No 
codification  can  be  so  complete  as  to  cover  all  possible  cases,  and  to 
cut  off  the  call  for  independent  precedents  and  decisions. 

Yet  it  seems  to  your  petitioners  a self-evident  proposition,  tliat  a 
common  law  may,  at  a certain  stage  of  its  growth,  have  reached  such  a 
degree  of  complexity,  and  may  have  become  so  voluminous  or  miscel- 
laneous in  its  authorities,  as  to  demand  codification,  and  also  that  it 
may  become  established  (or  capable  of  being  established  by  a careful 
comparison  of  precedents)  on  a sufficient  range  of  questions  and 
subjects,  to  render  such  codification  of  the  greatest  value  and  advan- 
tage. To  codify  such  a system  of  law,  is  not  to  arrest  it  in  its  progress 
towards  completeness;  but  to  facilitate  its  progress  by  writing  its 
history. 

This  stage,  it  is  believed  by  many  eminent  jurists,  has  been  reached 
by  the  common  law,  so  called ; and  much  has  been  of  late  wisely  said 
and  written  with  regard  to  its  codification.  Already  in  the  State  of 
Massachusetts  is  a commission,  composed  of  gentlemen  of  the  highest 
legal  talents  and  attaimnents,  engaged,  under  an  act  of  the  Legislature, 
in  the  codification  of  the  common  law.  Nor  do  we  deem  it  a merely 
fortuitous  coincidence,  but  the  result  of  analogous  views  and  argu- 
ments, that  the  Legislature  of  that  same  enlightened  State  should  have 
been,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  the  first  legislative  body  in  the  world 
to  recommend  by  vote  “the  institution  of  a Congress  of  Nations  for  the 
purpose  of  framing  a code  of  international  law.” 

Your  petitioners  believe  that  the  law  of  nations  is  capable  of  being 
definitely  settled  on  many  points,  on  which  it  is  still  unsettled,  and  that 
88 


698 


APPENDIX. 


190 


the  good  of  the  civilized  world  demands  its  early  establishment  and 
codification,  so  far  as  practicable.  We  reflect  with  alarm  on  tire 
admitted  fact,  tliat  the  points  of  international  law,  on  which  opposing 
views  led  to  our  last  war  with  Great  Britain,  still  remain  unsettled, 
and  may  involve  us  anew  in  hostilities  with  any  future  belligerent 
European  power.  We  believe  that  the  present  interval  of  peace  and 
amicable  relations  between  the  great  powers  of  Christendom  generally, 
would  be  eminently  favorable  to  the  prospective  settlement  of  the 
possible  grounds  of  future  discord  and  hostility.  We  carmot  but  think, 
too,  that  tlie  same  disposition,  whicli  has  led  the  principal  powers  of 
Europe,  in  repeated  recent  instances,  to  adjust,  by  amicable  negotia- 
tions, or  by  arbitration,  disputes  which,  a quarter  of  a century  ago, 
would  liave  inevitably  issued  in  sanguinary  wars,  would  induce  them 
to  accede  to  any  proposal,  emanating  from  a source  entitled  to  the 
higliest  regard  and  deference,  for  the  establishment  of  a code  of 
international  law. 

It  is  mainly  in  this  view  that  wo  petition  your  lionorable  body  to  take 
into  mature  consideration  the  subject  of  a “ Congress  of  Nations.”  We 
would  respectfully  submit  the  question,  whether  it  be  not  practicable 
for  a body  of  accredited  delegates  from  tlie  civilized  governments  of 
Europe  and  America  to  be  convened  for  the  establishment  of  certain 
leading  points  of  international  rights,  usage  and  intercourse.  In 
jrroposing  such  a measure,  and  urging  its  practicability,  we  do  not 
propose  and  urge  an  unprecedented  measure,  or  one  which  requires  any 
unwonted  form  of  negotiation,  in  order  for  it  to  be  canned  into  effect. 
We  are,  perhaps,  unfortunate,  in  having  given  to  this,  our  favorite 
measure,  a new  name.  There  have  often  been  tliree  or  more  parties  to 
an  international  treaty ; and  such  treaties  have  always  been  negotiated 
by  a “Congress  of  Nations,”  that  is,  by  a convention  composed  of  the 
accredited  representatives  of  tlie  several  high  contracting  powers. 
Moreover,  individual  points  of  international  law  constitute  a part  or 
the  whole  of  the  subject  matter  of  every  treaty  between  two  or  more 
nations ; and  by  every  treaty,  such  points  are  settled  for  a season 
between  the  parties  to  the  treaty.  The  measure,  in  behalf  of  which  we 
yet  hope  to  see  the  influence  of  our  government  exerted,  is  the 
negotiation  of  a treaty,  to  which  there  shall  be  as  many  parties  as  there 
are  civilized  and  Cliristian  governments,  and  which  shall  embrace  all 
the  points  of  international  law  which  accumulated  precedent  and 
authority  furnish  the  means  of  establishing  to  general  satisfaction. 

We  look  forward  to  the  establishment  of  a system  or  law  of  arbitra- 
tion for  the  settlement  of  future  international  disputes,  as  an  ulterior 
result  of  the  convening  of  such  a “ Congress  of  Nations,”  as  would  be 


191 


APPENDIX. 


699 


held  for  the  purpose  aforesaid.  What  that  system  or  mode  of  adjust- 
ment would  probably  be  — whether  by  the  renewal  from  time  to  time 
with  judicial  functions  of  the  Congress  originally  convened  for  legisla- 
tive purposes  (to  which  we  are  well  aware  that  there  are  sound  and 
weighty  objections),  or  by  defining,  by  general  treaty,  the  rights, 
powers  and  duties  of  umpires  of  tlie  respective  parties  to  an  arbitration 
— we  do  not  presume  to  say.  When  we  urge  upon  our  legislators  and 
others  the  project  of  a Congress  of  Nations,  we  include  this  object  of 
the  settlement  of  national  disputes  with  the  more  definite  one  of  the 
establishment  of  a code  of  international  law ; because  the  latter  object 
is  of  course  only  auxiliary  to  the  former,  and  because  the  latter  must 
needs  follow  from  any  train  of  measures  designed  to  carry  the  former 
into  effect. 

In  petitioning  your  honorable  body  to  take  this  subject  into  consid- 
eration, we  are  by  no  means  unaware  of  the  respectful  attention  paid 
by  the  last  Congress  to  similar  petitions,  or  insensible  to  the  merits  of 
tlie  able  and  candid  report  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
June  13,  1838,  by  Mr.  Legare,  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs. 
We  are  encouraged  still  to  petition  by  the  very  fact,  that  former  peti- 
tions have  not  been  presented  in  vain,  but  have  called  great  and  good 
minds  into  action  upon  a subject  of  so  vital  an  interest. 

We  respectfully  hope  that  ours  and  similar  petitions  may  be  the 
means  of  drawing  out  other  minds  on  the  same  field  of  inquiry  and 
argument;  and  also  of  chronicling  on  the  records  of  Congress  the 
progress,  which  we  are  well  assured  that  the  general  mind  of  the 
American  people  has  made  since  the  presentation  of  the  report  just 
referred  to,  and  which  therefore  its  collective  wisdom  must  indicate. 


No.  13. 

Petition  to  Parliament  hy  the  London  Peace  Society. 

The  humble  Petition  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Society  for 
the  Promotion  of  Permanent  and  Universal  Peace, 

Showeth, — That  a Society  for  the  promotion  of  Permanent  and 
Universal  Peace  was  formed  in  London,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  sixteen.  That  this  Society  has  attempted  to  effect  this 
end,  by  diffusing  information  on  the  subject,  showing  that  the  resort 
to  war,  to  settle  questions  of  national  profit  and  honor,  is  a practice 
derived  from  the  barbarism  of  former  ages ; inconsistent  with  the  en- 


700 


APPENDIX. 


192 


lightened  philanthropy  of  the  present  times ; altogether  contrary  to  the 
benign  principles  of  Christianity ; productive  of  extensive  destruction 
of  property,  liberty,  and  human  life,  and  of  many  other  great  miseries 
and  corruptions : and  usually  inefficient  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is 
waged ; and  hence,  that  it  is  incumbent  on  all  civilized,  especially 
oir  all  Christian  communities,  to  devise  measures  for  its  complete  sup- 
pression. 

Your  petitioners  further  show,  tliat  societies  have  been  formed  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  in  France,  and  in  Switzerland,  for  the 
same  purpose,  which  aim  at  this  most  desirable  consummation,  by 
precisely  tlie  same  measures. 

Your  petitioners  take  this  opportunity  to  state,  that  they  have  been 
strongly  urged,  by  the  American  Peace  Society,  in  consequence  of  the 
dispute  now  existing,  in  reference  to  the  boundary  line  between  the 
United  States  and  the  British  territories,  to  unite  with  them  in  endeav- 
oring to  allay  all  angry  passions  and  excited  feelings,  on  a subject 
which  ought  to  be  decided  by  sound  judgment  and  calm  deliberation : 
and  to  use  all  constitutional  means  to  prevent  the  outbreaking  of  war 
between  two  countries,  bound  together  by  so  many  ties  of  principle, 
affection,  and  interest 

Under  a serious  apprehension  of  the  danger  of  a catastrophe  so 
awful,  your  petitioners  earnestly  invite  the  calm  consideration  of  your 
honorable  House,  to  the  principles  of  tlie  acknowledged  religion  of 
this  country,  and  to  tliose  petitions  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Established 
Church  of  tliis  nation,  which  pray  for  the  preservation  of  Peace ; and 
they  implore  your  honorable  House  to  use  all  efforts  which  your  wis- 
dom may  devise,  to  prevent  a calamity  so  greatly  to  be  deprecated,  as 
a war  between  two  nations  of  one  blood,  of  one  language,  and  of  one 
religion. 

Your  petitioners  beg  leave  to  express  their  firm  conviction,  that  all 
war  is  opposed  to  Uie  spirit  and  precepts  of  Christianity,  and  is  contrary 
to  the  true  interests  of  nations ; and  that  the  time  is  come  for  the 
adoption  of  a more  equitable  and  Christian  method  of  settling  interna- 
tional disputes. 

Your  petitioners  therefore  humbly  pray  your  honorable  House  to  de- 
vise such  measures  as  in  its  wisdom  may  seem  best  adapted,  to  induce  all 
governments  to  unite  in  forming  a great  council,  for  the  purpose  of 
settling  the  principles  of  international  law  and  of  organizing  a High 
Court  of  Appeal,  in  which  all  national  disputes  may  be  adjusted. 

And  your  petitioners  will  ever  pray. 


« 

• 


*■  »t. 


, » 


♦ 


% 


; 


* 


r>  * * ‘ 


« 


#. 

. 4^ 

^ 0 ^ 


, I 


■ ' j,  ' 


if 


% 


♦ • 


• 


Date  Due 

f 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

JX1963  .L15 

An  essay  on  a congress  of  nations,  for 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1 1012  00002  2980 


